Transcript

I'll be chairing tonight's meeting. Everybody in this room knows what their usual spiel is, so I'm not going to go through it. We are being live streamed, we'll switch that off when we get to item B3 and probably for that reason we'll take item B3 at the very end. Otherwise we're open to accusations that part of the meeting has been held in secret, which is discussing things which are not actually exempt. Let's welcome Nazarene in particular to your last meeting. We've all become very aware of the great rending of a fabulous joint service with Camden over the years. If anything the audit service is the one surviving part of a very grand scheme 15 years ago to really significantly integrate Camden. Camden and Islington and Islington and then we just leave it as impractical. So we just ended up doing the things which were very practical and indeed it so it has been. Let's then move on to the agenda. Apologies for absence, I don't think we have any, therefore no substitute members. Any declarations further than our usual declarations in the register of interest? No, minutes of the previous meeting. If you're happy with those I shall sign them. Let's move on. Paul, can you just tell us if there's any variable financial updates you want to appraise us of? So since the last update I gave there have been very small up and down offsetting movements to the bottom line. So the bottom line for the council is just a bit over £3 million net budget overspend on the general fund. We have £5 million general contingency which can offset that. So we expect to finish the year and view a minor amount into reserves. There is still a couple of outstanding kind of one off items which hopefully will be resolved. So that is the commercial settlements that we've talked about in this or in scrutiny committee. So hopefully those documents will be signed in the next week which will allow us to recognise that income in the financial year. If the legal documents aren't signed in the financial year, it doesn't affect our forecast this year and it doesn't preclude us from getting the money, it's just the timing. But that is relatively good news given the kind of acceleration of temporary accommodation pressures that we'd had earlier on in the year where it was hundreds of thousands of pounds increase each month. Well just to take us a little bit more detail because I'm aware that the Q3 monitoring report goes to the executive on Thursday and that report shows a very slight worsening of the predicted variance at the sort of directorate level from £14 million to £15.9 million but equally there are some corporate items and other items which then offset that. So the net general fund is improved from a deficit of £4.3 million to £3.1 million which is all jolly good. Is there anything that's happened in months 10 and 11 that would indicate that this has worsened, improved? So not in months 10 or 11 I think I've updated the committee. I lose track of when this committee is versus when the publication of the Q3 numbers or the verbal update on Q3 that I gave. So one of the biggest movements that happened most recent was £1 million on parking which related to an assumption that we would have infrastructure companies pay for parking suspensions for them to basically dig up the road to put in increased connectivity in the borough. So that was the last time there was a significant movement since then that have been what I would characterise as fairly minor, things that are maybe up to £150,000 each way which offset the latest numbers on temporary accommodation. And I keep referring to that one because that's the one that I'm consistently most worried about, generally been stable since Q3. In the latest numbers there's a marginal uptick on that which is possibly slightly larger but masked by some additional income. So as that plays through, we'll just keep an eye on that, but that moved by about £150,000. The gross movement might have been about £400,000. But again that was offset by movements in the other direction. So actually month 11 for instance went up by £30,000 or so from month 10. So mine. Okay. And the thing that sort of sticks out a wee bit is that it's fun enough in your own directorate. Congratulations Paul. Paul is now the acting corporate director for resources. So he has an empire which includes legal human resources. But there was worsening in resources from roughly breaking even to being about a million adrift. Is that, the report that goes to the executive doesn't say, well, indicate what that's about. Is that a one-off or something that might start to require? So the predominant reason for movement in that is around the costs of servicing the legal requirements for children's services. So we are working through how that is being managed and mitigated and also just making sure of legal budgets a couple of years ago. So I'm just doing my due diligence to make sure that the appropriate budget is transferred over. Because obviously children's are in a very fairly healthy position. And it looks like the legal costs are obviously presenting the pressure on resources. So I just wanted to make sure that there was nothing going on with the budget transfers. Does it not make sense for legal services to be sort of fully recharged to children's services in these circumstances? So it does, but what we didn't want to obviously disincentivise people accessing legal advice when they need to. And equally, there is the kind of professional oversight and the accountability from someone accessing legal advice. If the person accessing it doesn't have the levers to kind of ration access, then you end up without spend controls, essentially, if that makes sense. So if one person is commissioning the legal spend, but then it's hitting someone else's budget, there's no incentive to manage to provide that advice. Okay. Yeah. All right. Members got any questions? No? Good. Thank you very much indeed. That's really helpful. Okay. Let's then move on to the item B2, the Drift Annual Internal Audit Plan. Nazreen, welcome. Talk us through it. Thank you, Chair. So this is the draft 25-26 audit plan, and the recommendation to the committee is to note the report and specifically approve the strategy, the charter, and then the plan itself. So I'll just say a bit about the background and how the plan was written. So committee will recall that we had updated the principal risk report last year. So the starting point was a mapping exercise, mapping the principal risks to assurance activity over a number of years, and thereby giving us sort of a steer in terms of gaps and areas where we want to be providing assurance. We then had a draft plan, and then what we did is we went around to see all the directorate management teams, so each corporate director has their directorate management team, and we went to go and see them and get an idea of the risks, whether the risks we had arrived yet chimed with their concerns as well. So we also, as part of the drafting exercise, spoke with colleagues across London and also looked at what others in London Audit Group were doing, and that's how we arrived at the draft plan. And then sort of the last place we visited was the corporate management team, CMT, and received really helpful feedback from them two weeks ago in terms of, you know, their worry list and where resources should be going. I think, again, I think we've mentioned follow-up audits because a key part of what we do is provide assurance to the senior leadership and committee that audit recommendations are being implemented, and note the plan has a number of areas where we talk to follow-ups and extended follow-ups. We've also mentioned that Section 7, conformance with the global internal audit standards, it feels like we've been talking about it for quite some time, and it's finally here, it's upon us, we've got implementation date of the 1st of April, and I think within, you know, sort of the last piece of work around the shared service was a roadmap, and we had worked the roadmap, and we had worked the roadmap over a number of months, culminated in self-assessment, and we've made minor tweaks to our methodology and ways of working in the last few weeks. I think it's also important to say we did train committee in December, so we had Subfa come in and train. I think Islington was quite early there because I've been speaking to other boroughs that I've still looked at the January chair session to train the members and training coming up, so I think that's a helpful exercise in terms of GIS compliance, and I think I'll probably mention the charter and the strategy, so the strategy isn't vastly amended compared to last year. The objectives still feel the same, there's some tweaks with the new standards coming in, and we've also written a strategy just from Islington's perspective, you know, given the de-merger, but interesting enough, it still looks very similar to Camden's because that's what a good internal audit service will seek to achieve. The charter, Appendix 2, is where we've had a significant amount of changes, so this is Islington's charter, it doesn't talk to a shared service, but most importantly, it complies with what the new standards are asking of us, essentially, and in terms of drafting the charter and arriving where we are, we had worked with colleagues in London Audit Group to see what is taking place elsewhere, so I mean, I feel it's a helpful charter, I also think what we look to do is just bring it back, you know, annually, so we said it's something that we keep under review annually, and then just lastly, Appendix 3, is then the draft audit plan, and if I maybe just talk to resourcing very quickly, is we've had our new audit manager start, he is actually this week waiting for committee to approve the plan tonight, and then working on the plan allocations already. One of the things that the corporate management team have said in the feedback a few weeks ago is a quicker start to the plan, so kick off the plan earlier in the new year. In terms of resourcing, obviously, my role will be recruiter too, but we've only actually got one vacancy in the team, we've got one audit vacancy in the team, and that advert goes out in April, so I feel we're in a good position, we've always got our contractor in the background, although that's not the key plan to utilise the contractor to deliver the plan, but that is a contingency in the 25-26 year. So I think that's all I had by way of introduction, and then open to questions. Thank you very much indeed. Good, it's a very thorough plan, and I think members will probably be interested just to really sense whether there is the right resource to deliver this plan, given that there is some flux and change built in, and it might be helpful, Paul, if you give us a bit of an update on the recruitment. Yeah, should I do recruitment, and then we can talk to the general capacity. So the advert for the risk manager, which is the second role, is hopefully going on the council's website, possibly tomorrow, possibly as early as tomorrow. It should all be, it was all finally signed off today, so I think that will just be going through a proofreading. In terms of then the replacement for Nazarene's role, so it's really critical that we get the right calibre for that. They are extremely rare commodities for people of really high calibre like Nazarene. So the recruitment strategy that we've been working with HR is more than just putting it on the website, because really what we need to do is shape people from other organisations. So we've procured a partner to help us recruit to that post. We've had the initial kind of process that they will be diving into their networks now, so hopefully once they're publicising it, they've already hit the ground running with contacting people for that. So if it's just about to be advertised, what's the timetable from there onwards? So we expect a recruitment decision very early May, so then assuming notice period, I'm currently working to there being a gap at the head of internal audit role for approximately a month, which for me I believe that we can live with that for a small period of time, because we've got Holly running the investigations team, we've got Lee running the internal audit team, but the only gap that we'll have is obviously the service leadership, but then the risk manager. But as obviously the kind of full-time equivalent, with it being a shared resource hopefully, there will be a period where we potentially have a gap in the risk manager. It's not a chief officer at all. The risk manager. Oh, I'm sorry. On filling Nazarene's post, is it a plan B? As you say, this is quite specialised, you know, it's very specialised. What's the plan B if that doesn't work out? So plan B would be to go straight back out to market to cover the leadership role by essentially the team managers being a direct report of the director of finance, which is my substantive role rather than my current role. I don't believe that that will be necessary. I believe that the salary and the reputation of Islington should attract suitable candidates. Obviously, the recruitment partner that we've engaged believes that it's recruitable and has a 100% strike rate so far of similar roles. So nothing is saying it is definitely a risk and it is a really kind of high-stakes appointment, but nothing is saying that there is a problem in my eyes yet. Nazarene, do you just want to comment a little bit on the matching of available resources to deliver this very ambitious plan? So we've actually done a calculation this week, Chair, so we're going to be allocating to our two principal auditors as they currently stand. Lee, our new audit manager, is going to be, like his predecessors, undertaking some level of follow-up, including one extended follow-up. We go to market in April for the one principal auditor vacancy that we have. Those jobs tend to have about a two-month notice period, so we're hoping that we'll have a recruitment decision around mid-May and then somebody in post by July, essentially. We are quite comfortable from the point of view that we've got a certain budget to use on the contractor, which we haven't fully utilised this year. And, you know, should we need to back full at all next year, just purely as a second choice. I mean, our first choice to recruit and get the permanent person to do their orders, but if that wasn't successful, we can lean on the contractor, essentially. I think we're in a better position now than we were in January, because when we visited in January, we had the auditor manager vacancy as well as a principal auditor. And now in March, our audit manager has started, and it's just the auditor vacancy, essentially. Okay. So, yes. Our members, Alan, I know you were going to ask about whether sufficient days have been allocated to that. It's a really good question, and I've got such a clear answer because there was a lot of discussion around this. So 140 does sound low. We've had a decent level of implementation, I'll say it's not a fantastic level of implementation that would vastly reduce follow-up days. But what we have included more of in this year's plan is extended follow-ups. So, for example, when we look at the follow-up activity for 140 days, right above it, you'll see modern-day slavery has got 10 days of its own follow-up activity. I think further along, we had said to committee in January that we had a new bold special review as well as affordable workspaces, that didn't feel right to lump into the overall follow-up category, and we gave it its own extended follow-up, essentially. So I think if you take into account the number of extended follow-ups and also the amount of days allocated to the extended follow-ups, it's about right. But, yeah, thank you. Caroline. Yeah, I'm interested in the essential conditions for the Audit and Risk Committee, which is the bit that's presumably about our input. So on page 24, there's a, at point 35, there's a list of 23, I think, things that the ARC will do. And I just wonder, does that all happen through the work of this committee? Because there's an awful lot of things in here and just making sure that we've actually thought about how we fulfil all of those things that we are expected to do. I'm sure it can be done through our committee meetings, but we're going to need to, yeah, I just wonder if anyone's done any thinking about that. So I think it's a really good question as well, and I think I'm very relevant given that the new standards are coming in. So I think there is sort of a one-size-fits-all for all of the requirements, and they fall into categories. So some will very easily come to the committee and it will be ticked off, for example, approve the charter, you know, approve the audit plan, it will happen. Some areas will sort of come into play when things go wrong. So, for example, enable internal orders unrestricted actors. I mean, I've been here some years and we've never had an issue with access. We generally get the access that we need to, but there are times, and the charter needs to make provision for this, where internal audit will have a scope restriction or access will be restricted, and then it's the head of audit's responsibility to alert the chair, alert the committee, that there's a scope, you know, restriction here. I think one of the things we can do, you know, ahead of the annual report coming is give thought to where this sits. Essentially, I don't know, Paul, maybe like a little table for Lee in terms of how, how the responsibility is discharged, essentially. So if it's via paper, then we say so, and if it's via just, you know, training or troubleshooting, then we say so, so it's clearer. Yeah. Yeah. I think that'll be really helpful, and I think, feeding it into the conversations that we have, I mean, we have really good training through SIPFA around the functioning of the audit committee as well, and principles of success. Very good. I know both Nick and Sara, you were concerned about the sense of priorities in the plan? I think, I mean, some of that's been covered, I think, by Alan's question. I had just a question about pace, like the resource allocated, the number of days. I'm just aware that this is happening in the context, not only of big new national legislation, it's happening in the context of us decoupling from, so there's quite a lot of external context to this year's annual audit plan that doesn't, that just isn't normally there. So I don't know if there's anything else you wanted to say about, about the context, I guess, and the responsiveness to that. I think I'm conscious that when the paper comes, it sort of looks very stable, and probably because it is, but in the background, there's been a lot of discussion around, you know, what we look like post the demerger, but when you really take it apart, the team is stable, the audit manager was hired before, you know, we knew the demerger was taking place. So I think, I mean, I'll come to the second point around, you know, the national position and all the other external forces, but I think in terms of the demerger itself, it doesn't feel as though there's an immediate disadvantage. I think that, you know, if you're talking to the team, they're looking forward to a full-time resource rather than just a half resource, and probably an HIA that has more time to work with them operationally. So I think in terms of direct impact on the plan, it doesn't feel a risk, and I think particularly because our two principal auditors that we have in post have been with the council for a number of years, so that lack of continuity and knowledge and of experience just goes away as a risk. I think in terms of you know, the external environment we're operating in, I feel we've hit the right areas on the plan, so for example, the new procurement act is coming in, that's been included on the plan. I think key will just be to get the plan delivered, essentially. And I also think, you know, we don't operate in a vacuum at Islington, and, you know, sort of me going isn't going to change that. The team comes to London Order Group, they collaborate with the Cross Council Assurance Services, which is a number of London boroughs drawing on the PwC framework. So it's going to be sort of difficult to drop a ball when you're operating in that kind of environment where you're networking all the time, dealing with colleagues, and staying abreast, essentially. Thank you, that's very helpful. I guess there just is a, because you have worked here for a long, you personally have worked here for a long time, and then we're going into a situation where even in the best case scenario, there's probably a bit of a gap, and so it's just helpful to understand some of those kind of layers of institutional knowledge in the team, and that for Assurance, and in case there's not another opportunity to say thank you for the work you've done here. Yeah, absolutely. I think also, just to say, Councillor Hyde, is the way we work in London. For example, I don't want to quote the names of the boroughs, but the HIAs that I speak to quite regularly across London, and I think when the new person starts, I imagine we'd probably be in touch every month, you know, for a couple of months, because it will be exactly that knowledge transfer, and it was exactly the same way when I got this job some years ago, where in the first few months I'd been speaking to the previous HIA quite a bit, because it was exactly that knowledge transfer, and I'm sure that will continue. Good. Well, yeah, there's two sides to that, the new person asking and you giving, so thank you. In fact, there's more the latter than the former. Nick? Yeah, just quickly on prioritisation of this plan, because inevitably over the next few months it will feel slightly different with the de-merger taking place. What, at the moment, are the key priorities, in fact, which internal audits will be prioritised, and what do you see as being the main challenges for internal audit over the next six months? Again, such a good question, and I think as we were defining the quarters this year, I think this year the quarters on the plan are probably more meaningful than any other year, because even the corporate management team gave feedback around the quarters. Sometimes the quarters don't matter so much, so for example, quarter one can mean quarter two, and this year the feedback from the corporate management team was sometimes can you change this to that quarter, but also a very clear directive from the chief executive and the corporate management team to kick off the plan quickly. So I'll probably just say something operationally, but I think it will provide some assurance, so our new audit manager, Lee, is due to go and see all the corporate directors in April to talk through their sector of the plan for the coming year, but in terms of the key pieces taking place quite imminently, so starting sort of April after Easter is the two extended follow-ups that we talked to on page 31, so the new build program and affordable workspace, and we've given that Q1 essentially, so those are actually already in planning stages, those follow-ups, and then deliver everything else that's listed as Q1, in Q1. We've also said to our co-source partner, PwC, that they will get their plan in April, so usually where they scope in the summer, this year we'd like to see them scope in spring. I think there's also that added impetus because I'm going and I want to leave it in a good place, whereas usually I'll say, oh, let's get the annual report done in scope in the summer, and now it's the other way, can we scope in the spring, so that I can do, you know, a handover that I'm proud of essentially. Thank you very much indeed. Alan, I think you wanted to just ask a couple of questions. Can I ask a question, Nazeem, on Appendix 4, just for my understanding, because you've laid out this assurance map slightly differently, fairly clearly, but I'm just slightly needing an understanding when you highlight from 2021, 2022 and onwards, so you're going back in a sense. Does that imply you're revisiting areas that haven't had complete audit clearance, or they're just part of the program anyway? Yeah, so I think, so the reason why we code 2021, 2022 onwards is, I think we've got something like 28 to 30 principal risks, and it isn't possible to audit every principal risk to the desk we'd want every year. year, so we sort of look at over the last, you know, sort of four years, what assurance, you know, what activity had taken place, and then also what was the assurance outcome, essentially, and then that informs whether we put it on the current year's plan, for example. So I think if we perhaps take the first one where we've got new bold as the top risk on the principal risk report, and then our coverage says 21 to 25, this is what we've done, so work in every single year, essentially, and then what we said we do in 25, 26 is just follow-up activity, essentially. So I think when you look at the standards as well, the new standards, the idea is that you have to deliver a risk-based plan, and you look at, you know, the ongoing assurance for that company. The other point here I had was on Appendix 3, again for clarification, which is page 30. The first one, CC 25-1, risk management assurance mapping, just can you just explain, explain what that means, and is there a correlation between that and your comment about fraud risks? Is that part and parcel of the same thing? Oh, I think so generally in the cross-cutting section, so CC 25-1 to CC 25-5 are usually the static thesis that we have on the audit plan, but because the audit manager's resource also goes into this plan, we say, you know, we include any audit activity that they will be undertaking so for example, the risk management assurance mapping is actually undertaking that exercise in Appendix 4, so, you know, and that's why it says quarter 3 as well, so come sort of Christmas time, the audit manager will pick up the latest principal risk report and start that mapping exercise, and it's not that the appendix itself takes him five days, it's the pre-work, looking at all the outcomes, what was the assurance racing, and then suddenly the next one, fraudulent activity, we've said 10 days, it may be more, we may go into the contingency, but it matters that Holly refers, so Holly may do an investigation and say, well, I'm a bit concerned about say, a school for example, can you go in and do a full audit? so, yeah, that's where it comes from, yeah. Very good, thank you, and I think, yes, because I think, Alan, you were asking about the, I think you described it as principal risk, about the alignment with the council's risk appetite, but actually it's profile rather than, I mean, actually it's a very interesting question, what is the council's risk appetite? Because I don't know the answer to that, to be fair. I raised in the context here of the defined, trying to remember now, in the context of the audit charter, I think, and or in terms of the strategy, the other strategy, and yes, and it mentions, I think it's paragraph 2.1, mentions aligning it to the council's risk profile, so my point is anyone reading that would automatically think, well, what is the council's risk profile, and I just thought an extra sentence might be required, and that leads on to discussing what, does it open the door about, well, risk profile, risk appetite, risk tolerance, how far do you go, but certainly it begs a question beyond the risk appetite statement. I think, you know, we've always said file with service, there's risk management sitting on the top of the umbrella, and then internal audit following from there, and then investigations usually coming in when something goes wrong. when you look at that umbrella at the top, that's the risk manager working with the senior leadership and the corporate management team to define what are the council's principal risks, and that comes in the principal risk report, and then separately when we talk about appetite, that is included in the framework, and interestingly we were just talking to Paul about this in the last week, essentially, it's one of the pieces of work we're doing ahead of the demerger, is revising the council's risk management framework, and I think I had mentioned when we came to committee in January with the risk paper, that we had the council's insurers undertake an external review, and they've come back with some really helpful recommendations. I think I'll just sort of remind that the current risk appetite is came to committee in 2022, as part of the risk management framework, and we took a very broad view that felt comfortable for the senior leadership at the time, so maybe I'll just share it after this meeting with committee again, just to see what it currently looks like, and then when the updated framework comes in July, you can sort of compare, but we sort of said, you know, made a provision like, you know, we won't tolerate something that's a breach of a legal obligation, for example, and yes, sorry, so it was quite a broad risk appetite. I hope that's the top line of our risk appetite. Sorry, I think just one final comment, Chair. On the strategy, my point also was that there's no mention of the fact that over the past years, the internal audit has given a blanket assurance rating of moderate. overall, you've got a moderate rating, and I just wonder whether that should be included in the strategy, in other words, increasing, try to have a strategic direction to have more of a, more of a higher rating than moderate. I think that's what I'm trying to get to. Yeah, I mean, I think it would be difficult to define that within the strategy because we'll always be pre-empting because the strategy is forward-looking and an opinion is backward-looking, but I think it's worth saying that moderate actually means an adequate control for the work, so it's what others may call reasonable. Yeah. Good. Carol? Sorry, got a question about Appendix 4 and the assurance map, and just, it was on page 35, the cost of energy, and it says that as such, additional assurance work in this area is not considered necessary for 25-26, and I just wondered if that's been revisited since the change of administration in the White House and the kind of global uncertainty that is kind of all across our television screens, and just in terms of energy, cost of energy as a risk. Sorry, councillor, so what page really? Page 35, cost of energy, not before page 39. I apologise, because on page... Oh, page 39, sorry. Okay, so on page 39. I think what we had done, following the corporate management team's feedback, is amended climate, so we had removed climate from the plan, and then put it in for 25-26, I think, if committee... It's not climate though, is it? It's cost of energy, which is... I think the reason why I was mentioning it is when we are scoping, because we haven't defined the scope yet, and I wonder, we could do two things, and I think this is why it's helpful that the plan comes here for approval, rather than noting, and we say, if the committee does want something around energy, it's either a new order, or we consider that when we're scoping climate, because we haven't got a specific scope for it yet. All gone. I mean, just to remind as well that this is the internal audit plan, so the cost of energy as a risk, and as a principal risk, is still there, so this is just about whether we choose to audit it, and the context of when it went in was when we were really, really exposed to the spike in energy following the invasion of the Ukraine, so it's stable, clearly there's risks around the entire world, around the energy cost, but what we would learn from an internal audit of it is probably limited. Got it. Thank you. Yeah. And if I would discuss this at the last meeting, I mean, the issue probably is where the council takes a fresh look at the sort of collective purchasing arrangements, and see whether that is purchasing forward prices have worked sufficiently smartly to be able to hedge some of these risks, because you look at energy prices three, four years from now, those forward prices have not gone up. I mean, the market could be wrong, but you can actually buy energy four or five years out from now at pretty decent prices. That's the issue, whether we should mitigate that risk, rather than sort of speculating whether Donald Trump's going to have a meltdown and the price of everything will rocket upwards, you know. I mean, he's controlled the price of eggs, apparently, ever so cleverly. Good. Okay. Any other questions on this topic? Lovely. Thank you very much indeed. That's been a really helpful conversation there. Right. Let's, before we switch off the live stream to our hundreds of viewers, thousands of viewers, let's just do B4 and B4, sorry, yes, the work plan and the action sheets. I've just distributed, I distributed earlier a couple of notes to members, just trying to bolt down some of our deep dives a little bit more clearly, and not wanting to get into the extravagance of, what do you call it, scrutiny? A PID, a project initiation document, yes, it is, which runs the pages. So I've just drafted out a couple of sentences, setting out the scope of certainly three of them, some deep dives on the vulnerability of financial risk associated with following school roles, a look at the governance on the, over the, the way in which we're dealing with the emerging difficulties of recruiting some senior staff roles, and whether we've got the right, whether we've got the right sort of governance and candidate selection assurances in place, and then perhaps a further assessment on the risk associated with recycling rates, remaining broadly unchanged with some risk factor to increase recycle rates. Members are sort of happy with those firmer form of words, then that's good. And then I've suggested that we've got a slightly better sort of set of warrants for some information report requests. The matter of indemnification of councillors insurance, which was something we realised is a little bit of a risky issue. And then another look at this year's experience on estimating the income costs on the parking income account, recognising that again for the third year, and there's been a little bit overestimation of income, just getting a real grip on the sorts of assumptions there. Are we happy with that? Yeah, okay, thank you very much indeed. Okay, let's throw the switch, turn off the feed, shut the door, no, we don't need to shut the doors. Let's move on then to, thank you. Right, let's move on to the exempt report. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much indeed.