Transcript

Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Welcome, everyone. I'm Tracy McKeown. I'll take the chair for the start of the meeting tonight so that we can appoint a chair. If I go to apologies for absence, please. Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Fauwe, I have any further apologies? Thank you. I'm going to propose that we do declarations of interest and then appointment of chair and then do the minutes after the appointment of the chair unless anyone objects to that. Okie doke. Any declarations of interest, please? Okay. And nominations then for the role of chair of the committee. Thank you. Thanks very much. I nominate Gareth Chapman to be chair. Any seconders to that, please? I'll second it. I will second it. Second that. Any further nominations, please? Norma, did you want to come in? You're on mute, I think, Norma. Sorry. I was just seconded. Thank you very much. That's fine. Thank you. Any further nominations? All those in favour? Any against? Norma, were you in favour there or against? In favour? Okay. Thank you very much. I'll hand over to you. Chair, thank you. [No audio] Okay. Can I just thank the members for that nomination? It's great to be chair again for what will be my third year now, so thank you for the confidence, hopefully, that you're having me. Next item on the agenda is the minutes of the last meeting, which is pages three to 12. Someone prepared to move that they're a correct record? Thank you. Do I have a seconder? Norma, have you got any issues? No. Correct record. Good. Seconder? Yes, thank you. Anyone against? Nope. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is, it should be the appointment of the vice chairman. Is that okay? Lovely. Okay. So appointment of the vice chairman. Do we have any nominations, please? I'll nominate Don Reed. Thank you. We have a proposer of Don. Do I have a seconder? Norma, thank you. Are there any other nominations? No, there are none. So we've got the recommendation then is Don be appointed vice chairman. Anyone against that? Nope, that's carried. Thank you very much. Before we go on to the next one, which is the Newport City Council annual audit summary, I'm very sorry, but I should welcome some new members of the committee. So welcome to you, Mark. Thank you for joining our first committee. Greatly appreciated. I also understand that Councillor John Reynolds gave his apology, which we've recorded. And obviously when he arrives next time, I'll welcome him. And I also understand Councillor Bev Perkins is also a member of the committee, but she's not with us tonight, but most welcome anyway. And hopefully you can contribute to the committee. I'm sure you will. So the next item on the agenda is the Newport City Council annual audit summary pages 13 to 18. Is that you, Sarah, or? Thank you, chair. I'll come in as Matt Edwards. Thank you, Matthew. Thank you, chair. And good evening members. Good to see you all. I'll take it that the paper's been read. So I'll just briefly introduce it. I'm happy to take any questions. So really it just summarises the audit work, the audit Wells have completed at the council since the last annual audit summary was issued some 12 months ago. And there shouldn't really be any surprises contained within the summary because really it just summarises the key messages that previously been reported to governance and audit committee covering the also general's key duties, mainly on the accounts and unperformance work. I won't take you through any detailed aspects of it. The only things you just draw to your attention on page 15 of the pack, the penultimate bullets and the account section does refer to the fact that a separate report will be issued to the council in due course summarising the outcome of it, the workflow and the take on grants and return certification. And that report is indeed with you today under item seven of the agenda pack that you have before you today. I'll leave it there. Sarah, is there anything you want to add from the performance side in particular? Only to say that I think some of the reports are listed there are going to be coming to the audit committee in July. And I think some of them were referred to as a previous kind of regulatory review updates. I'm sure Tracy will correct me if I'm not quite right on that, but that was my understanding. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. And Sarah, are there any questions on the report? Don? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask a question on page 16 of the pack where you're talking in terms of digital strategy. And the point that you're making is that the council has not had it fully costed in terms of the wide range, but it is not fully costed. I wanted to know in what way is it not fully costed? How has that been relayed to the officers? And do the officers agree? Want me to come in there, Chair? Yes, Sarah, thank you. So that is one of the reports that is going to be coming to the July audit committee, the governance and audit committee. So there'll be an opportunity for us to go through the findings then. And I understand the council's also bringing their kind of response to that. In terms of the process we've gone through, the report was cleared with the officers. The report has been agreed and finalized, but yeah, it's probably makes sense once you've seen the full content of the report that we can go into some of that detail, if that's okay. I'll provide you with a full picture in the meeting in July. Yeah, thank you, Sarah. I think for Don's question, it'd be worthwhile having the relevant officers here as well as charity. So when we get it here, then obviously some of the questions you can answer and be posed to you. But until we get the report, I suggest we wait. Yeah, that's one of a range of recommendations. I think we don't fully agree, actually. Okay. But in the round, we've got a series of actions that we're proposing that we can take you through. Okay, sorry. Could I just clarify then, you don't necessarily agree with this, some of that findings? We don't necessarily agree by the financial costings because we would say we have digital budgets and they're published. It's okay, because I've spent half my life arguing with audit reports. So I just wanted to know whether you were accepting it or whether we've got more to come to help the committee understand the situation. Yeah, I think we just need to wait and see now, Don, don't we, really, rather than preempt what's going to come from Audit Wales and what the response is going to be from the Council. Let's wait and see what the report says and then we can have a discussion and a dialogue at the July Committee. That's the best way forward. Norma? Thank you, Chair, and I'm glad that Don raised the digital strategy, because that was one of the things that I had on my list. I mean, only on an audit summary, I picked up four areas of concerns, and that was the wellbeing objectives, results in monitoring, their implementation is not sufficiently developed yet, the performance measures give limited information on services and outcome, the digital strategy we've covered, and the counter fraud arrangements, there are weaknesses to be addressed. Now, I don't know what exactly, I can't recall what has actually come into the July meeting, but from our point of view, those were the four areas of concerns that I identified in the report and things that we need to be focusing on. Yeah. Sara, are you able to deal with that? Yeah, I think from my understanding, certainly, the digital report, the performance information report, I think the wellbeing objective setting report is also going to be going. I'm not quite sure on the counter fraud one, forgive me, I thought that might have been covered in one of the previous kind of regulatory updates, but Tracey, please correct me if I'm wrong on that one, in which case it will be going. Okay. Tracey? They'll all be picked up in the next meeting. Welcome to July. We do a regulatory round up, Chair, as you recall, and we'll cover all of the recommendations and all of the council's responses to those. I think your point about making sure the right officers available is relevant, because some of those are me, but not all of them. No, exactly. Unfortunately, we don't want you put in the position answering for the directorates. We need the directorates here, really. We'll check on the attorneys. So if you could put them on advance notice, that'd be great. Is that okay, Norma? They're going to come in July. That's fine. That's really helpful. Thanks very much. Thank you both. Okay. Are there any other questions? Any comments? Don? Yeah. I just wanted to comment on page 14, where it's got Newport has 24% of the highest 95 areas, and it's the highest of the 22 unitary councils in Wales, and also that Newport is the fastest growing. I think it's easy to gloss over that in terms of what the officers are having to deal with and the councils having to come up with answers for. And so I just didn't want -- I wanted to comment, because I didn't want it to be glossed over, because I really appreciate the difficulties that the officers are facing when you've got something that's growing so quickly. And also in terms of we've got the highest number of all the unitary authorities of the 10 -- the most tender pride 10 areas in Wales. Yeah. Thanks for that comment. Obviously, you know, the officers will take that into consideration when drafting their corporate priorities and the corporate plan clearly. And again, that's an issue we can pick up when we get the relevant reports in the year, Don, so the backwards looking report or whatever. Are there any other comments? No. Can I suggest that the recommendation is that we note the contents of the report? Someone prepared to move, please? Thank you, Gavin. Can I have a seconder? Thank you, Don. Anyone against? No. Thank you. Next report is the Audit Wales Quarter 4 timetable, pages 19 to 34. Thank you, Chair. Is that you, Matthew, again? Yes. I'll introduce it, and I'll hand over to Sarah again. Same routine, Chair. And again, for noting, really, for the committee, it's our quarterly update to the committee in terms of progress with our program and timetable for the year. It also signed posts as well to some other outputs, including national reports, from pages 30 onwards, which may be of interest to the committee and to members of the committee. But turning to page 19 and the financial audit work there, obviously, we're going to cover the certification of grants and returns under the next item, but just to flag there, which I will refer to in a second, the housing benefits subsidy work remains ongoing, and I'll say a bit more about that shortly. But in terms of the accounts audit, the 23/24, the council's draft statements, they're due to be received by the end of June, and we'll be looking to certify those in line with the Welsh Government timetable of the 30th of November, and also similar to that, the Greater Gwent Crematorium Joint Committee Annual Return as well. We'll pick up with part of that program of work. I'll hand over to Sarah now just to briefly touch on the performance aspects, but again, I'll take any questions. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Matt. So in terms of the performance audit work, I'll just flag some key updates really since we issued this quarterly update, because there have been some. So we have, as we mentioned in the previous item, we have finalized a number of reports in the last six months or so, mentioned performance information, digital, well-being objectives, and other key changes there. And we have also agreed and finalized the planning services report, which I understand is due to go to the planning committee, I think, the 12th of June, certainly mid-June, just for you to be aware of. The corporate safeguarding work, that fieldwork is underway. The thematic reviews, where it says thematic reviews, just to clarify, that means we're doing that piece of work across all 22 councils. The one we're doing at the moment is financial sustainability, so that work is underway. We're hoping to get the reports out in the next couple of weeks on that one, and there will be a national summary report as well on the financial sustainability piece of work. And the other thematic review that we're doing this year is around commissioning, and I understand a project brief has been issued, and we're looking to do the fieldwork over the summer. So yeah, the key one was to say that the planning services report has now been finalized. The other update then in the local government committees on page 23 of your pack is to make you aware that the governance of special purposes authorities, the national parks, has now been published. So that's an update since we issued that to you, but happy to take any questions on any aspects of that. As I said, many of those reports are coming to the July audit committee. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Sarah. Any questions? I apologize. I'm going to go look behind because I haven't got a screen in front. No, there are no questions. Can I just ask, Sarah, on the report itself, we've got various final report issued, and we were discussing about the performance information, setting the well-being objectives, counter fraud, and we said that's going to come to the July committee. The timetable for those was 2023, well-being April 23, February 23 for counter fraud. I'm just wondering whether when this report comes out, when it says the final report issued or the final report published, is there any chance that Audit Wales could actually put a date of when that was done so that actually we're, you know, we've got a final report issued in February to September 23 for the performance information. You said it's issued, but when was it actually sent out? Yes. Sorry. Yeah, of course, chair. Sorry, just to respond to that, chair. Yeah, of course, we'll take that into account for the next quarterly update, and we can make that clear. And where we publish the reports, we also include them on our website. But yeah, we'll make that clear in future updates. Yeah, lovely. The other question I've got, where it says, obviously, governance in fire and rescue authorities, while South Wales Fire and Rescue are in special measures or wherever they're in now, and North Wales are similar, it says field work planned at Newport City Council, no. Is there any reason for that? Because obviously, Newport City Council have had an elected or two elected representatives on the fire and rescue service. So when you're looking at governance, they actually form part of the governance of the fire and rescue service. So is there any reason why the elected representatives from the constituent authorities are not being dealt with or whatever? Chair, I may have to just double check the methodology for that piece of work and come back to you via email or out of committee on that one, because I wouldn't like to say one or the other at the moment, whether the fire and rescue kind of representatives are being engaged as part of that review or not. So if you're okay, I'll come back to you. Yeah, no, that's okay. It just seems strange that the whole governance of fire and rescue rests with the constituent authorities, not the SARE now, because obviously, they've been replaced by the commissioners. But the report into fire and rescue, whilst it had general passings to governance, it was all about culture. But it seems strange that if you're reviewing the systems and effective of governance, that you should really speak to the elected representatives. But that's the only comment I make. That's okay. I'm happy for you to come back, Sarah. Are there any other comments in regards to the report? Obviously, Sarah, I'm not saying you're the spokesperson for care inspector at Wales or Estyn or anyone else. But again, we've still got some of the issues there, the probation youth offending inspection, which obviously Newport will be part of awaiting publication. So I'm just wondering whether it could be fed back to those organizations to put the key dates in there. So if it's awaiting publication, is it this year or next year, so we actually know when it's coming? There's no criticism of them, but it would be useful as a committee to know when these things are coming out. Sorry, Paul. Sorry, Chair. Just to advise, as well as the audit Wales regulatory and reports update, the next committee will also include care inspector Wales and Estyn. So the probationary piece of work, which you referred to there, I believe will be included with that as part of that report. But there are others. You've got joint inspection, child protection arrangements, findings from Cardiff will be published shortly. It says awaiting publication, doesn't say when. And I think, you know, obviously they've done Denbyshire, Bridgend and Powis. But it's lessons to be learned for this authority, which could be useful taking anything forward. So, you know, it's always nice to learn from other people if they've got it right. Clearly, we don't want to learn if people have got it wrong, but certainly if they've got it right. Okay. Thank you, Sara, for that. Are there any other questions? Any comments? No. Again, can I suggest that we note the contents of the report? And obviously, we'll have a report again in July on most of this. So is someone prepared to move that we note? Thank you, Don. Can I have a seconder? Thank you, Gavin. Anyone against? No. Thank you. We've got a report then, item seven, the Audit Wales annual report on grants work, pages 35 to 42. Any questions, anyone? Oh, sorry. Matthew, is that you first? Sorry, I apologize. I was jumping the gun there, and I was assuming everyone's ready to were poised to ask you questions. And I'll assume everyone's ready as well. So I'll just keep it extremely brief, if that's okay, just to give a brief overview. And again, another item for noting. And really, this report just sets out the high level findings and costs associated with the grants certification work that we've undertaken at the council since 2021. And I think it's probably the first time we've produced this report now since 2021, as I mentioned, due to a number of factors, one partly down to the fact we've needed to prioritize other statutory accounts work since the COVID pandemic. But also, I think that's been compounded by ongoing issues with the council's housing benefit, subsidy return, and some of the issues of identifying and reporting back to DWP since 2019/20. In terms of the detail of the report itself, on page 39A, you can see a brief overview in terms of some of the findings that have arisen in relation to the various returns that we certify on behalf of the various bodies each year. And the one, as I mentioned, that stands out as housing benefit, subsidy return have either been amended and qualified since 2021. The 22/23 work is ongoing. I think we've had to pause that now as we turn our focus towards the NHS statutory accounts deadline. But I'm pleased to say that we've secured some resources now and subject to conversation with Mavion and Rob. We'll be looking to progress that work in July now to enable us to conclude that work as quickly as possible. And the council's not alone in that. There are a number of councils in a similar position where we're yet to certify that 22/23 work. And the other thing just to flag as well, you'll see within the report, there are quite small amounts referred to. So for example, on teachers' pensions in 2021/22, there was a small adjustment of 11 pounds there. And that's because we don't apply the concept of materiality when certifying these returns. The grant paying bodies, and in this case, the teachers' pensions agency requires to report any errors over a penny back to them. So that's the reason why we're flagging some minor, fairly minor adjustments in some cases. Just turning to the costs on page 40 of your pack, you'll see that the costs do fluctuate each year. And again, the housing benefits subsidy return is the biggest element of those costs. And I think it's probably fair to say that due to the issues we've identified with the housing benefits subsidy return, the costs for the council are consistently above the average when we look at the cost to other authorities. So I think what that does illustrate really is a need for the council now to look to resolve some of the issues we've been reporting back to the DWP for a number of years. And a flavour of those really is set out on page 41 of the report of your pack there that you can see. And in particular, I think that the work that we've identified, notwithstanding there is a cost to that, we've actually identified a net gain in subsidy receivable that's been payable to the council from the DWP of nearly 300,000. So again, I think it just illustrates that whilst we've got a lot of work into this and officers do as well within the council, that work has resulted in an additional net gain in subsidy to the council. Just finally, you can see some of the issues in paragraph 15 there that we've identified, mainly around the accuracy of underlying evidence behind aspects of the housing benefits subsidy return. And much of that information is the information collated by housing needs team and how that then informs the work in terms of the subsidy itself and discrepancies or errors within the data that's being used that results in errors within the return. And finally, just errors in classification as well, or the calculation of certain costs, which again can impact on the subsidy that's payable to the council. I'll leave it there, chair, but I think just one final point, actually, if I may, the DWP require us to follow up on these issues each year, and it actually increases the work that we're required to undertake. And also officers at the council in terms of supporting that work as well. So I think there's a real incentive there for the council to address some of these issues that have been reported to the DWP over a number of years now. But I'd love to take any questions, chair. Okay. Thank you, Matthew. Are there any questions? Norma. Thank you, chair. I did have some concerns about this report, and thank you, Matthew, for that good explanation of it. I mean, this is actually costume from what I can work out for council, unnecessary expenditure. And again, you know, there's a series of errors. So I really want to know what is actually being done in this area in terms of management training and supervising staff, because we've picked this up in other areas of the council previously. It seems to me it's often an issue of management training and supervising their staff, you know, because it's not acceptable to have this number of errors. We're above the average, I think Matthew said. Seems that's right, Matthew, isn't it? That's right. And you're not alone in this. We do identify issues at other local authorities as well across Wales. So yeah, and quite often in particular the housing subsidy return is very technical in its nature. So, you know, it's a high risk audit from our perspective in terms of some of the issues we're likely to identify within them. And as I say, there are issues across Wales in respect to this as well. I can see Meydan's got his hand up. Okay. Thank you, Matthew. Maireann? Yeah, thanks, chair. I mean, I've taken this up with the Revs and Bents manager and the benefits manager or the team leader that works for her. It is a huge grant claim. It's a grant. It is the culmination of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of transactions. And actually the kind of money that's involved in that claim is in the millions. I mean, many, many, many millions. So I think we need to have some context first. You know, this is not a massive error. However, as I think Matthew has said, even a five pounds error has to be reported to the WP. There is no materiality, which I've never quite understood given that these claims are absolutely in the tens of millions. But it is what it is. We've had a conversation and the team leader does a lot of self-testing when they're working with the auditors on this claim. That's how the audit is conducted. We do our own testing based on their samples. And I think that Audit Wales then tests that we've tested things properly. And I think that we take an extremely purist approach to doing those tests. And sometimes it's because we followed the DWP rules. But then during the audits, it's been identified that that's not been taken into account. And actually we believe that a lot of the errors are sort of not errors. But for some reason, the staff and the management in that area have not had a, shall we say, robust conversation with the auditors in sort of saying, actually, this is not wrong. There's been an update from the DWP X, Y, Y and Z. So we're just trying to get to the bottom of this. I'm reasonably satisfied at this time that staff training is going to find staff knowledge and experience is also fine. And I think that we just need to change our approach to some of the, let's call them errors, but we don't think they are errors. So we're going to be taking a much closer look at what we find in the future. But I just want to reassure the committee though that whilst the figure in itself looks like a sizable figure, it's extremely small in the context of the housing benefit claim. And we are pursuing locally what the issues are and trying to get to the bottom of it. And we think we've kind of cracked it. But so I'm hoping that we'll have a better audit in the future with maybe a more robust set of challenges going back to the auditors as well. Norma. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Marion. I think it's useful for you to outline the context. I think that is really helpful. But I think there are some issues as a council which you're recognizing yourself that need to be addressed. And I think as an audit committee, it would be good to have the assurance. And I take your point about the errors. But there again, you know, and Matthew has said, it's quite common with other local authorities and ways, but we are above the average. Yeah, I can only comment to you that we're taking it seriously. I've already had some conversations locally, which has given me my own assurances around skills, experience and training. And I think that we need to just take a slightly different approach as to some of the stuff that we are finding. So, you know, we're not resting on our laurels. We have discussed it and we are going to hopefully see an improvement in the future when we change our approach as to how we test and find these things. Norma. Yeah, could I come back on that? So can you just give us a brief overview of what this new approach is then, Marion? Yeah, there's kind of, so I'll give you one example where there was a seemingly an error against how something should have been dealt with. However, when you speak retrospectively to the team leader, there is going, yes, but DWP issued an instruction that X, Y and Z was going to be an acceptable way of dealing with it to which the question is, well, it's not an error then, is it? Like, well, he said, I guess it's not. I've been a bit too purist about it. However, of course, because he's agreed possibly in error that something that they've done was incorrect, it then stays as an error. So we are working through what are all that sort of means. And I suppose what I'm saying is some of the errors may not be errors, but they weren't challenged or dealt with appropriately during the audits. So the audits concluded with these things as being errors and actually retrospectively don't think that they were. I think there will be lots of other situations where maybe there are kind of errors and everybody agrees. As I said, the housing benefit claim is the culmination of a huge number of transactions and the lack of any materiality means that you're always, as Matthew said, going to find issues with it. So we can do much about that. The error rate is low and we're hoping that with that new approach, it'll be even lower still in the future. But it is on the agenda. It's being actively discussed internally with the benefits team or the team leader, you know, because we want to try and get this sorted as best we can. Thank you, Marian. Don? Yeah, I've got some on the page 40 where we're talking about the cost to the council consistently above average. I've got real problems with the word average. What does it mean? You know, and how is it being used in this time? You know, I think it's a poor, poor use of words myself and how, because how are you defining it? Is it connected with the fact that Newport's got 24% of the 95 areas in, in deprived in Wales? Is that connected? And if there, whatever, however average is defined, how far above are we? What does it mean? How does it match? And are we comparing like to like? Are we saying all 22 unitary authorities are all oranges or are we saying this slightly different, which is going to have an implication? Because I think the statement in the, in the report is quite damning, but once you, once I'd like to drill down on it and find a bit more about it, and I wish there was a bit more concrete about it so we could actually find out what the reality is. Because as it stands average, I think it's quite glib and it, and so it doesn't help me understand the report. So my question is, is, you know, what, what does it really mean? Yes, please, Matthew, before my incomes issue, Matthew, it's your report or report it with reports. I think, I think the purpose of that statement really is just contextualize the level of the fee basically. And I think it comes back to the conversation we've been having that, that the fee for Newport City Council in terms of the housing benefits subsidy elements of it is certainly higher than the vast majority of other local authorities. So I think what we're flagging here is the context of the quantum of the fee is well above the average in terms of what we'd see across those. You know, you talked about the levels of deprivation, et cetera, as well. I don't think there's any sort of direct correlation between the audit fee here and the levels of deprivation in Newport per se. The work that we undertake is to ensure that the subsidy rules that the DWP require the council to follow have been adhered to. So it's quite technical in its aspects. So it doesn't necessarily reflect the wide demographic issues that the council's facing. So okay, Tom. Yeah, I guess in terms of when, when you're looking at the areas, are you telling me that all the councils basically are having the same number of claims against the money? Is that what you're saying? Well, the number of claims varies depending on the size of the council and obviously the number of claimants that live with it with notes. So I think what we're trying to explain is that obviously we're required to undertake certain procedures to enable us to report back to the DWP. And those procedures would generally be fairly comparable. The only, the key difference maybe is where a local authority, for example, hasn't got a housing revenue accounts, council properties they've been outsourced so that we may undertake less work at those local authorities. That's the only reason why there may be comparable differences between them. Thank you. Myron, did you want to respond? Only, only a quick one. I, I, I agree with, with Matthew there. I think, I think that the size of the, of your housing benefit spend is probably, it, it, it, it has an impact, but I don't think it has a direct impact because, you know, this is time spent on testing, et cetera, in line with what the DWP wants the auditors to sort of test. So, but I think it's probably incumbent on me to say when we're talking about, about averages, of course, that that's Newport has like many cities in particular experienced a huge growth in kind of people, you know, homelessness, et cetera. And they're all virtually housing benefits claimants, and we've seen a lot of increase in our workload in that area since 2021 and the COVID pandemic. And that has created some problems as well with the claims sometimes in terms of the interface between housing colleagues and the housing benefits team, um, regarding data, et cetera, that is required to justify the kind of claim. So that workload has really put housing and housing benefits under a lot of pressure. And, um, and I think new ports, like say, you know, kind of different sort of other urban areas of, have really struggled to sort of, um, um, manage that kind of workload in over the last four years or so. But, um, so, you know, the fact that we've got through it and the error rate is still, you know, not acceptable, but reasonably small is, you know, it is a positive, but, um, I think that that workload issue has had an impact as well. Thanks, Myron. Gavin. Thanks, Chair. Um, it was a question from Matthew. Um, Myron's said that we're doing, um, there should be some challenges back to the auditor, to Audit Wales when they're going through and looking at some of the perceived errors. What are we doing differently to other authorities in order for there to be this sort of differentiation? Um, and if not, then why are we being treated differently? Thanks for that question. I think the first point says that I would suggest you not being treated differently. Um, the rules were required to apply and follow when assessing the subsidy returns, um, on behalf of the DWP are quite specific. Now, I think there's part of the introduction explained that this area of work is quite complex. It's quite technical in its nature. Um, and it's not unusual for auditors and housing benefit officers to disagree with the interpretation of the regulations and the guidance and the rules that govern, uh, the compilation of this claim and the subsidy. Um, what the DWP requires to do where agreement cannot be reached is that we're required to report that back to them. Um, and then they take their time, sometimes a year or so, two years in some cases where they will then form a view and agree with the auditor's view or the officer's view. And then the guidance then is updated to reflect that to clarify those areas. So, so it's not unusual for us to, to, to, to reach that position. Um, and as I say, the DWP require us to set out any instances where councils or the auditors don't agree for them to arbitrate to basically inform a view on those. Mark. Yeah. Uh, thanks Gareth. Um, just a couple of comments really on those recommendations on page 41. The concerning bits for me are, um, around the fact that sort of these have been going on for a number of years and we sort of don't seem to have been able to get a grip of them. So sort of an echo in Norman's, Norman's comments really earlier. Um, and if I'm honest, Mary, and I wasn't convinced by your sort of reply to normal area that you will sort of didn't give me the assurance certainly that, um, you sort of call the handle. I felt your response was, we're not going to agree so much with the auditor in future as opposed to get out without an order in terms of resolving them. Um, and I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across like that, but that's certainly how I took it a little bit. Um, so just, that's just sort of my general comment, I guess that shared just to say that's actually fine. I mean, as I've, as I've said, we are, we are talking about this internally and seeing what the language are. I think as Matthew was just explained, um, uh, the audit does include a series of conversations between the offices and the auditors regarding the findings. And in hindsight, I think that our benefits people felt as if they needed to be more challenging because actually they were of the opinion that they were in compliance with DWP issues, but they didn't, um, uh, strongly make that point. So actually it just went in as an error as opposed to a disagreement. And yeah, and, and therefore, you know, I'm encouraging them now to sort of find their voice, to gain some confidence in going, if you feel that you're doing the right thing per the WP regs, et cetera, then you should say so as opposed to, okay, that's an error. Uh, they should actually find a voice and say, actually, no, we think X, Y, and Z perfectly okay for the auditors and the, and the housing benefits staff to have a disagreement. There is a mechanism as Matthew has explained for that to go back to the WP. So the number of errors I believe will be reduced in the future because the benefits team will find a voice that says, no, that's not an error. That's a, that's a different interpretation. And then let the DWP, um, resolve it, uh, in their own good time. Yeah. So, so, um, apologies if my previous explanation was a little bit haphazard, but I think Matthew's explanation there helps me clarify what I meant by there'll be less errors in the future. Um, you know, I think, I think that they're different interpretations. It definitely does. Yeah. Thanks, Miriam. Thanks. Norma question. Norma, you're on mute. Thank you chair. I mean, I'm struggling a bit with this, um, in that the regulations of the regulations and interpretations in my mind should be broadly in line. So I don't quite get that, you know, we disagree with DWP when DWP set the regulations to me, they should be fairly clear for staff to interpret and as long as they're managed and supervised properly, I would have thought that that should just work. So I'm still not entirely convinced on this. Um, yeah, I don't think there's any point in spending, you know, any more time on it because I think it's been discussed further enough, but I, I still have, um, a niggle about it and it'd be really interesting to see whether the performance of the council does improve in the future as a result of what, um, Miriam is saying. But as you know, to me, it still doesn't sound quite convincing that staff are, um, interpreting the regulations in a way that they need to challenge DWP to, you know, it doesn't convince me. So, um, let's wait and see how things move forward here. Thanks Norma. Don. Okay. I'm going to do a dangerous thing. I'm going to disagree with Norma. Um, I've got, I've got people who run with a business models where they, this is their livelihood working on the differences between different organizations, interpreting things from HMRC and from DWP. Um, I think this report would be much better if there was something in there saying that there are differences going on is to the interpretation of what DWP want and they're subject to clarification because we've all seen this and whether DWP or the revenue, they issue something later. So, uh, it's clarified as to what they're looking for, but often it has to be challenged and there will be differences, you know, or the accountants and all the specialists wouldn't have businesses. So, um, I actually would, I think it'd be great to revisit this when we've got some clarification. So we find out exactly where the situation is bad or whether the interpretation meant that it's 50 50 or whatever. So I think it would be good for us to revisit this, but I actually understand exactly what Marion's saying and actually agree with it. Is there any more questions? I've got a question, Matthew. It just goes back to what Don raised about, um, consistently above the average, obviously Moo, uh, Newport's, um, fee is 35,000. Can you say what the average is in Wales? Because I think that's what we, we need to know. Is it 30,000? Is it 28,000? Is it 20,000? What is it? Because for me, I'll deal with it in the comments. Clearly, if we could get this right, then the fee would reduce. I would hope, um, and rather than be at the level it's at, you know, clearly in 22 23, it went down to 16,000. Uh, but that's not yet been certified, but the previous years it was 40 and before that was 44. So we're going in the right direction, but it's getting it right and getting it done right at the right time so that, uh, you know, these areas can be picked up, uh, accordingly. So I'm just wondering what the average fee is. Um, yeah, I, I agree with you chair, getting it right is key, uh, and that will have a direct correlation in terms of what the fee would be because we charge on a per diem basis a daily basis. So the more issues we identify or, you know, the less efficient in terms of responses and the time that takes it all. That's the cost of the living this work which required to build for. Um, I haven't got the average or Wales average to hand, but I can certainly share that with, with committee chair. If you leave that with me and I'll, I'll circulate that, um, to you after the meeting if that's okay. Yeah, no, that would be useful. And I think, uh, you know, picking up Dawn's point in any future report, it would be useful just to say what the average fee cause at least then you've got a benchmark against how far Newport is off against the national average. So I think that would be useful. So thank you for that. That'd be good. Thanks. Uh, are there any comments now? Obviously, uh, Mark took advantage of me, but there we are. Are there any comments? I've got some comments to make and I think, uh, I'm just going, I'm reiterating really what Norma and Mark has said. Um, I am concerned that throughout the report, it said the lot of these issues have been, uh, ongoing over a number of years. Uh, if you look at paragraph 10, uh, and again, uh, in, in other paragraphs, it says, uh, 12, um, the housing benefit substitute has identified various issues and errors over many years. Um, so it does give me some concern and, um, whilst I understand what Myron has said, he's had some discussions with the staff, uh, et cetera. Um, unfortunately Myron, that doesn't satisfy me enough. Uh, and what I was going to ask in regards to certainly the questions some of the committee have raised is can we have a comprehensive report on this setting out, you know, what the issues are in regards to, uh, the errors that have been picked up or, or what they are. What quantum are we talking about? You know, are we talking about tens of thousands of pounds, hundreds of thousands of pounds? What we're talking about? And can we have sort of an action as to what is being done about it? Because I would rather have that from yourselves before, uh, we take it, you know, we've got to take this forward, but we'll take it forward. If it raises issues for me, then I would like to refer it to scrutiny for them to investigate, uh, or maybe internal audit for them to look at, but also it gives us ammunition, uh, for our colleagues as well in, in audit Wales that we can challenge them as well. So, you know, this goes both ways in my view, you know, yeah, we're here to improve the lot for, uh, uh, for Newport, uh, city council. We're here to improve the lot for the citizens of Newport. And I think it goes both ways. And if we can improve, then hopefully Matthew will come back next year and say, well, your fee's been reduced because you've actually taken positive action to address these issues. And thank you very much for doing so. So my, my recommendation is whilst we note the contents of this report, we get a full report from, uh, whether it's Myrian or the housing benefit team, or whether it is to set out what the position is warts and all. So let's have it as open and as possible, we can, uh, let's, you know, let's find out what the quantum is. Let's find out what the issues are. Uh, and then obviously we can deal with it. Um, I don't know whether members would support that. Uh, but clearly that's my view, you know, w we've been discussing it tonight. We don't know what we don't know. And I'd rather start from a premise that we have a report, uh, which I assume that Paul and Tracy wouldn't normally get as part of the regulatory report on this. Uh, and let's, let's deal with that, uh, head on and, you know, we can make some progress then as we go forward. So that's my recommendation. Uh, firstly, we note the contents of the report and then we have a comprehensive from report from Myrian or the, and or the housing team, uh, to set out exactly what the issues are in this area and how we're working towards resolving them. You know, if we're reducing the, uh, presumably they're overpayments or whatever, then, you know, then that's, you know, that's more power to our elbow and then more money back into the public purse. Uh, do I have a second for that? Thank you, Jason. Uh, anyone again? Oh, Norma, sorry. You've supported that Norma. Yeah. Okay. Anyone against? Nope. Okay. So have you got that, uh, committee clerks? Lovely. Thank you very, thank you, Matthew, again, for that. We then go on to item eight, the quarter four, 23/24 corporate risk register update. Tracy? Thank you, chair. I'll introduce some, Paul will give us some of the details. Um, as you say, as the quarter four risk register update, a few key things to note, uh, 15 risks recorded nine severe, um, but one new risk, which is the WCCIS replacement system issue and one deescalation, which is the delivery of the internal audit plan, which I know members have asked about previously. Um, I'm just going to flag that we previously did some work with members on what risk looks like in Newport because we've had some changes. We may wish to rebook that perhaps a couple of meetings from now. Uh, so we'll do that because some of those questions tend to come out, but a reminder for everyone that this is about looking at the system and how we manage risks rather than the detail of those risks, which is at cabinet. Uh, the other thing to say, which members sometimes ask about is the dates within the risk on the risk register. We're coming up to, well, we are currently closing our service plans and reviewing plans for next year. And so a lot of the dates therefore end on the 31st of March, but by the next risk register, we would expect those to have been reviewed. And that's a process we're going through currently. I, I imagine that that would be a question. Paul, any details you want to take us through? Thank you. So there's just a couple of, um, details just to go through with the committee. Um, in the last committee meeting, there was a couple of points raised in relation to the highways risk and to the housing risk. So I'm just going to address both of those. The highways risk, um, is going to be going to the scrutiny committee in July where they'll be discussing the new highways asset management plan. The scrutiny committee have been made aware of the issues being raised by governance and audit committee, and that will be fed back into governance and audit committee following that meeting. The other issue that was raised in the last meeting was to do with the housing risk and a couple of the actions and policies taken in quite some time to be delivered. Um, we, I spoke with the head of housing who's advised that some of these policies, they're taking longer than perhaps what people would necessarily think because they go through Welsh government. They have to be approved by Welsh government. So there's obviously a longer period in which those plans have to be submitted. So it's just to address some of those concerns raised there. Just going back to the new risk that was raised, which is the WCCS replacement risk. So this is the social services system, um, which is used by children's and adult services and other departments within the council. This is a national system and I think it should be stressed to the governance and audit committee in that this particular system, um, we are largely, you know, at the, you know, the, the remit of Welsh government and the health service in terms of the replacement of that. We are a voice as part of one of the many, um, local authorities which are affected by this. And so there is a lot going on in terms of the kind of the, the procurement of the new system. This risk is being raised because of the fact that it could, you know, it's a big system which is used by the council and other local authorities. And it's important that we kind of address this now before we get to that end point in December 2025. Um, the other risk in terms of the delivery of the internal audit plan that's been deescalated, um, I believe representatives here from internal audit are here to discuss the delivery of the internal audit plan and Maureen's here. So obviously they can take any questions when that item comes up. And yeah, we're happy to take any other questions from the committee around this report. Thank you, Tracey and Paul. Uh, any questions? Don? I think Paul would be disappointed if I didn't have questions. Um, Paul, this question probably Maureen's going to answer on page, on page 61 of the report where you've got balance in the council's medium term budget, it talks in terms of extremely challenging, um, you know, medium term. Um, so it extends past this current year. Um, my question is that not in the risk mitigation action plan, nothing is noted as going forward, um, anything required and yet it seems the risk goes, carries on over the future years. I'm just wondering, is there any plans for any mitigation or do we just wait to the next financial year? Um, Jack, I can, I can answer that one. There probably should, should be something on that. Um, um, obviously the council is putting in place a transformation plan. Um, projects are already underway and, and hopefully we can, we can see that sort of surface, um, with companies, et cetera, in the future. And then the council through the exec board, uh, and senior management will need to develop other, um, approaches to finding savings as well. So I think those comments should have been on there. Um, so apologies that that isn't, isn't the case. Um, you know, yeah, we've, we have struggled, but so has most other councils to put together a medium term plan that is balanced and we, and we do inevitably therefore end up balancing the following year's budget clearly because that is that that is the minimum that we need, need, need to do. But, but yeah, so we will make sure that those comments on the transformation plan and the developments of, of, of the other approaches goes in. Um, um, so that that's there next time. Yeah. Just to add, as pointed out by Tracy at the, right at the start, the, all of the actions and the risks will be reviewed and obviously for 24, 25, the finance team will be included as part of the mitigation action plan, the next medium term kind of financial plan process and, and the actions will kind of reflect all of that work, which will be ongoing with that as well. So yeah, it's just to address that, Robert. Yeah, I think Paul's just said something similar. So I was going to say, obviously Don, when you're looking at the risk mitigation action plan, it is backward looking, but a lot of those same actions, the sorts of things we do on an annual basis. So they will more than likely reappear alongside other mitigation actions as well. Mark. Thanks Gareth. Um, I just wanted to make a point, um, on one, on page 75, the pressure on adult services, um, as part of the risk report, um, given that we are shortly or replacing both the director and the head of adult services, uh, both together, basically imminently. I just wonder whether that factors in because the sort of mitigation arrangements are a new structure with a director and three service areas, but given both those points in order to have some focus over the next 12 months, I would say, okay, Tracy. Yeah. Thank you chair. Thank you. Counselor important points. I mean, what I would say is both recruitments have been completed already. And, um, the director of social services will start just before the existing director finishes, which is probably unusual, but we've taken that step to, to assure that that position, um, because it is important that those key posts are in place. Jason. Yeah. Thanks chair. Just on page 52 on appendix two, where the chief executive on education, you've got, it was total five risks from court to four risks. And you've got one risk there, which is decreased in quarter three. What is the risk being decreased? Because I can't see, I can't under sorry, uh, which page 52 on appendix two with the chief executive on education, the total quote for risk is five. And then you've got a decrease on, on court to three. What is the decrease of the risk? Yeah, it's, it's a service risk and I believe it was to do with, um, the placements. So it's, um, it's a service area risk. This wouldn't be reported to this committee. Um, it's a service risk. And that risk was in relation to, um, the kind of the, the longterm, uh, placements. So they do modeling and in terms of against the population, et cetera. And so that's being decreased because they've got a good, um, site in terms of what's happening going forward. Okay. Any other questions? No, I've got a question. Um, Paul I'm pleased at WICIS is on there. Um, uh, WICIS has been known for some time that it's going to come to an end and, uh, clearly the 18 months, uh, trotting on now. Can you just confirm, uh, you mentioned it's a national system, so do all 22 authorities and eight health boards use it? So to clarify, not all local authorities use it. Um, what we understand from speaking with the director of social services is that, um, within the Gwent region, we are working together as a region to look at what alternatives there will be. And that is feeding up into the national kind of review at the moment. Our understanding at this point in time is that it's going through, uh, Welsh government in terms of funding and in terms of finances going forward. So we are at the mercy in terms of awaiting decisions at a high level in terms of what happens at the next stage. Okay. Any other questions? Any comments? Don. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Um, it was his comment on the pressure on housing and homelessness services on page 77 of the pack. Um, this incredibly difficult area, you know, that's not been made by the legislation changes. And, um, um, I guess my comment is this is an area of huge concern, I think for Newport and, you know, it's been touched on before. Um, so in it, there's almost a question to you chair as well as to whether we would be in our remit to ask for a report on this, because I just think it's such a big risk area and, uh, as to whether that would be something which would be in our remit or you're going to tell me it should be in another place. I'm sure if Reece was here he'd give us an answer to it. My view, my view is, yes, we could ask because if we're not, uh, given the assurance by the, the mitigation measures or the risk, you know, which is set out, I would have thought it'd be fair and reasonable to get a report to provide us with that assurance moving forward. Um, but clearly, uh, what I don't want is to step on the officer's toes here they, you know, uh, to tell me that we can't have it, but I would have thought given that we're seeking assurance and Don is saying we haven't got the assurance at the moment, uh, that would be only fair and reasonable just to have a, a report to cover that point. Tracy? Thanks. I, this has come up before, so I know, and I should have given Reece's apologies by the way, uh, so apologies for Reece, uh, that this would be a matter for scrutiny and is in the scrutiny end of your report. So, um, and not to double up, but there might be something in just, um, ensuring that for information that's provided to the committee what the discussion at, at scrutiny covered. I think that would probably be a useful way to go with that. Yeah, I'm happy with that. Uh, you know, it's just, it's just to provide that assurance, you know, it may be in another committee, but if we've got concerns, then our role is to challenge that, uh, constructively. Uh, and I think, you know, if we could get that, that would be very useful. We'll, we'll arrange for that to be... Lovely. Thank you, Tracy. Any other comments? Uh, the only comments I make on WICIS is that, um, clearly, uh, 18 months is a short time scale to get this in place. Um, obviously it's, it's pleasing to hear that the grant authorities are working together with the health board. Um, but in reality, the system needs to be all Wales because these young people travel, the adults travel throughout Wales. They move from one place to another. And if we've got one system that's not compatible with, I don't know, Rexham or Flincher or Isle of Anglesey or wherever it is, uh, then there's a, there, you know, there's a discussion to be had. Um, so I'm just wondering whether if Welsh Government are looking at this at the moment, are they going to insist that it is an all Wales project, um, that needs to be taken forward with everyone talk, you know, everyone's systems talking to one another, or even if you buy different systems that they can talk to one another. Um, and, you know, even if Welsh Government give the approval for, uh, the go ahead, uh, are we then into a tendering process and, uh, you know, uh, looking for a preferred contractor, negotiations, and is the 12 months or whatever time scale then enough to get the system in place given that you've got to run your existing system with any new system that comes on. But I'm sure Don could answer me that given his technical background. But it's, it's just that assurance that if it falls over in December 25, uh, you know, it's making sure that we got the right information again at the right place and readily available. I don't know whether you can answer that Paul, but, uh, if you got it, all we'll say is we'll note that from the governance or the committee, we'll feed that back to the director. And obviously in future updates, you will obviously be provided in terms of those updates as to the progress being made. And obviously any decisions that will be made will also be going to a cabinet member by the, the, the appropriate process as per our constitution. Tracy, you want to say anything? Thanks. I don't want to give any false reassurance about the weakest risk because it's really significant and important as you set out. The other thing that we haven't said here is that we have a shared IT service with a number of other authorities, which really helpfully gives us an ability to work as a region as well, which is SRS, which is a moderate advantage over some others who are working on their own on this. So, um, it is another mitigation, I would say. Can I, can I just ask, do we have the budget? Has the budget been allocated for this system from the council's, uh, resources? I'd have to, I'd have to check on that. Okay. Because obviously what you don't want to do now is I would have thought some budget allocation is there because otherwise you'd be trying to find X amount of money. So if you could, that'd be useful. And then in a third bullet point, you said there could be potential risks. Isn't it a real risk? Yes. Good correction. Thank you. Okay. Jason, sorry. Yeah, I'd knock on Jerry's, just maybe a point, just a lot of clarification, or it's a bit concerning for me, where you're on the homeless, as where Dawn was saying, you know, I read on the bottom the direction of the risks and supply is not keeping pace with demand and the cost of living crisis has started to increase further demand. They said a number of initiatives are being explored to increase the supply of temporary and permanent housing and reduce the use of bed and breakfast and hotel accommodation. Well, there's a matter of risk already, do you know what I mean? You know, we've got this, there's nothing, you know, housing is not, it's very short. So how can they be looking at more initiatives to try and reduce it if there's nothing there? So what sort of a direction they go in with this to deal with that? I think what Tracey said, if we can get that scrutiny report, and again, that may, hopefully it won't pose more questions than it answers, but hopefully it's been looked at by scrutiny, you know, they've certainly challenged that, and again, we can look at that going forward, Jason. Okay. Gavin, did you? Yeah, it was just a quick housekeeping one, it's not cabinet members anymore, it's not cabinet member. Okay, so presumably the recommendation is that we consider the contents of the report, which we've done, assess the risk management arrangements, the authority, and provide any additional commentary or recommendations to cabinet. Clearly the committee class will pick up the additional recommendation, as will you, I'm sure, Paul, and someone prepared to move then that the points made be picked up and referred to cabinet. Thank you. Can I have a seconder? Thank you, Norma. Anyone against? Nope, thank you. Next item on the agenda is the Treasury Management Outturn Report 2324. Is that you, Robert or Myriam? That's me. Oh, Laura, a speaking part again tonight. A speaking part, yes, thank you. Welcome. Thank you, Chair. So this report is to inform the committee of the Treasury activities undertaken during the 2324 financial year and confirms that all Treasury and Prudential indicators have been adhered to. So the level of borrowing as at the 31st of March 24 has reduced from $138.6 million to $137.7 million. The reduction in borrowing is in spite of the authority taking out additional SALEX funding loans, which were interest-free and linked to specific energy projects, as well as two small PWLB loans that were redeemed at the end of September, which were not refinanced. There are also a number of loans which are equal installment payments. So at the start of the financial year, the authority had six LOBO loans and within 2324, three of those LOBO loans gave notice that they were intending to increase the interest rate. The Council made the decision to repay the loans at no additional costs, as accepting the revised terms would mean the authority would still have that financing risk for those loans in later years. So the authority actually took out £15 million worth of new long-term borrowing from the PWLB in order to repay those three loans. This had no impact on the net borrowing of the Council's overall. This is the first time new long-term borrowing has been required for a number of years, and the other three LOBOs have got call dates within the next 12 months. So again, if this option exercised and an increased rate is proposed, a decision on how to proceed will be considered alongside other financing options, and this will be made in conjunction with our Treasury advisors. So investments have also significantly reduced from £47.2 million to £13.9 million throughout the second half of the financial year. This was anticipated as reserves are being used in line with their approved use, the continuation of the capital program and the reduction in the internal borrowing capacity. So as demonstrated by the liability benchmark in this report, the authority has an underlying short- to medium-term need to borrow, which is currently anticipated to crystallize during the 24-25 financial year. So the lower level of investment balances compared to the previous years is a clear indication of this borrowing need starting to crystallize. So aside from the LOBOs, which could potentially see interest rate rises, all of the external borrowing is on a fixed-race basis. Therefore, the intention is to hold off undertaking any borrowing until absolutely necessary. The current forecasts from the Council's Treasury advisors suggest that the rates will remain broadly in line with current levels before steadily starting to reduce. However, this position is reviewed on a regular basis, and this will be especially important over the next few months considering there's a certain need to undertake new borrowing of around 20 million towards the end of the 24-25 financial year. We also will see the impact of reducing internal borrowing capacity as well as the possibility that the remaining LOBO loans will be called during the year. So because of this reduction in investment balances, it means that the cash flow management will also be more challenging. And as a result, it is much more likely that short-term borrowing will be needed to undertake with managing day-to-day cash flow requirements. And as and when this is required, it will be the head of finance as the necessarily delegated authority in order to undertake this. I just wanted to mention as well that we will be including historical data in this report going forward. So the Committee has asked to note the report and provide any comments and considerations for Cabinet. I'm happy to take any questions. Robert? Yeah, it's just an additional comment, if that's okay, Chair. Just to really re-emphasize what Laura said is we've sort of had a fairly benign few years in terms of Treasury management, but we are sort of moving into a different sort of phase now where that underlying need to borrow really is coming to the fore. So as Laura said, we'll be sort of taking a more active role, if you like, in terms of managing our cash flow but also seeking opportunities to take borrowing at the right time to make sure that, you know, if there are temporary rate drops, which, you know, can happen and did happen during last year, we can be ready to take advantage of those because we know that ultimately that long-term need to borrow is there. So the reports that you'll receive as a Committee going forward may look at, you know, we'll start to show that different picture emerging. So, yeah, a different phase that we're going into now. Robert, any questions? No questions. Can I just say, obviously, the investments have gone down quite substantially and your net borrowings have gone up quite substantially. I assume that's because capital projects are coming online now and you're spending enormous amounts of money on, I don't know whether council, not council houses, whether it's schools and such like. Is that where most of the money is going now, is to re-vigorate and build new schools, etc.? It's a mix. So it's a continuation of the capital programme, so we've got quite a large capital programme for the authority, but also our reserves are decreasing in line with what they've been approved to be used for, which reduces our internal borrowing capacity. That's okay. It's just that the people see these figures go up and all of a sudden they think, you know, there's no context on it and I think it's that context around, you know, you're delivering the capital programme which the council set out over a number of years. So, you know, they are getting some value for money in regards to, you know, new schools and such like, which will obviously add and hopefully increase the attainment levels, kids going into a new school. That makes a huge difference to young people's learning and that. So, okay, any comments? So, basically, sorry, Jason. Oh, Norma, sorry. You're on mute. Yes, thank you, Chair. I'd just like to comment that this is a really good report and it's a very clear report and it enables the committee to really understand the financial challenges that the council are faced with and it is a very challenging scenario, isn't it? You know, as with other councils going forward, very challenging and I'm just sort of looking at, you know, how do we mitigate that and it's very difficult and I've probably asked these questions before but what are we doing again in terms of divesting ourselves of assets and I'm sure I've asked that question before because that could be a way of bringing in income and to the other point, and I think I've probably asked it again, I remember someone explaining to me that loans for developers were related to partnership regeneration schemes and we've got 10.3 million on loan to developers and, you know, what's the time scale for repayment of that and are there any risks around that 10.3 million? Robert? Yeah, so just, I see Moira's got his hand up, so just taking the first point in terms of assets and so the council does have an asset program, so an ongoing review around assets, you know, that isn't solely focused on reducing the number of assets, that's as much about asset optimization in terms of their usage as well, so, you know, making sure that before we go and acquire any assets, you know, we make use of the assets that are already in existence. In terms of the developer loans, there's a bit of a mixed picture in terms of when they're due. In the majority of cases, so there's three developer loans, the two larger ones, neither have yet reached the position where those loans are due for repayment, so, you know, they're normally linked to like a kind of practical completion date, something like that, and then the loan is either due at that point or so many years, normally so many years beyond that point, so, yeah, we haven't, with the two bigger ones, we haven't quite got to the point yet. Inherently, there is a degree of risk with those sorts of initiatives, so, you know, we do wherever we can take the appropriate steps to mitigate those risks. So, for example, with the two bigger loans, again, we have fully funded those through our capital program, so what that means is that in the event that those loans weren't repaid or the principal amounts weren't repaid, we're not at that point at a disadvantage because we've already sort of financially covered ourselves on those loans, but what it means is we effectively forgo the capital receipt that we would get from the repayment, so we are being very prudent and cautious in our approach around those loans to, you know, in recognition of the fact that they are inherently risky but also connected to, you know, areas like retail, for example, which, you know, are suffering at the moment as well, so hopefully that provides enough reassurance that, you know, as an authority, we're doing what we can to cover ourselves there. Thank you, Robert. Tracy, did you want to pick up assets because I think you're responsible for selling assets or not personally responsible but reviewing them, it's within your team. It is, and not personally for all of them, but as Rob says, there's a cross council set of people working on quite an extensive program of asset rationalization, but it doesn't always mean reduction, it means repurposing often and change in use often, but hopefully there will be some rationalization in there and that also affects the risk on the corporate risk register, of course. Thanks for that, Tracy. Thank you. Don. Yeah, I just wanted to get clarification on what you said, Robert, with doing it. So is it, would it be, what I'm about to say, would it be a true reflection of what you said? You've got 10 million pound loan that's owed, so you write off the loan and on the basis that you've got it covered, and so if you do get the 10 million, it's like having 10 million new money, almost like a profit. Yeah, I wouldn't want to use the word profit. I didn't think you'd like the word profit, actually. Yeah, so in effect, we are, as I said, we're funding the cost of the loan, we're treating the loan, so we've issued the loan, but we're treating it as though it's expenditure in the accounts, but then as and when those loans are repaid, yeah, as I said, it's more like a capital receipt, so it's new capital resources, basically, that we can then use to replenish the ones that we've used to issue the loan, in effect, so it gives us the opportunity to direct those towards new capital initiatives or something like that, so hopefully, I think we are saying the same thing in broad terms. Myron? Rob, I was just going to say, whenever the council borrows money, it's required to set aside a revenue budget to repay it, that's the MRP budget. We have set aside MRP budgets for those two loans, so the alternative would have been not to set aside MRP because the developers are expected to pay us back. However, of course, if there was to be a problem, then we would need to consider, you know, doing it at that point, so what we did from day one was to set aside MRP budgets to repay these loans over the long term, which means that anything that the developer, as Rob has said, gives us, and hopefully the full loan, that's what's expected, will then be available for us as a capital receipt. And actually, national guidance on this now supports a similar approach, although we did it locally before that national kind of approach was made, so that was quite pleasing really. We were being prudent and sort of sensible, and because of the troubles with these sorts of loans nationally, and, you know, we've all heard about councils getting into difficulties, as it were, that's why the guidance has now changed on these things, but, you know, luckily we were ahead of that curve. So, yeah, that's why any repayments will be a capital receipt, because, you know, to be able to be used, because we are already funding the repayments of those loans separately. I hope that helps. Can I just pose a question then on that, Maureen? Whilst you're granting a loan to a development company, and then obviously you're borrowing to backfill that, does the council make a loss, or does it actually make a profit? Because clearly if the interest rate you're loaning the developer to, or whatever repayment it is, and you actually have to borrow money to backfill that, could it be seen that the council may actually lose money? So, you know, this is a simple view for me. You lend 10 million pounds, and you hope to get back, I don't know, 12 million with interest or whatever it is, but to borrow money you get 10 million, but actually to pay it back you have to pay back 15 million. So, in real terms, council loses money. So, I'm just wondering, do you actually get your money back plus a bit of profit, or what, you know, the interest payment on it? Yeah, I mean, we do charge interest on these loans, or interest is due and payable on these loans. The rate that we set is as much influenced by the need to keep on the right side of state aid as kind of anything else, and therefore the council needs to ensure that the interest rate is commensurate with the principles of state aid. So, do we make a profit? I don't know. We haven't done those kind of calculations, but it's reasonably comparable with our own borrowing costs in terms of interest. So, you know, without having done the figures, I can't quote you a figure, and certainly in this context in a public meeting, I don't think that we want to be talking about it as well in terms of the detail. I haven't got it anyway, but I think that there is a reasonably comparable rate that we borrow at on what the developers are charged, although as I said, it's as more dictated by state aid rules than as much as anything else. Yeah, maybe not for this meeting, maybe by way of a confidential report, but, you know, what I wouldn't want is the council to maybe make a loss on it in some respects, but again, that's something, you know, you said you haven't worked out the figures, so, you know, I'd just welcome that discussion at some stage. As you wish, Cher, and you'll know how to get in touch with me, so as you wish. Thanks, Martin. Norma? I would support further discussion on this, really, because it raises some concerns. I understand the need for regeneration, you know, improving the physical environment of Newport, et cetera, and that, you know, you have to go in partnership with developers, but we all know the issues around managing developers as well and how their costs rise once you've gone into your contracts with them, et cetera, et cetera, so it would be good to have some form of analysis that these arrangements that we go into with developers is either likely to lead to an income of some sort at the end of the council or whether it is going to be a loss, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing that it's a loss, because if, as a result of that, we've improved, you know, we can put a value in terms of how the area has been improved, as is the rights of those arrangements, but, you know, it's fundamental, isn't it, to know exactly what we're getting for our money? Myron, shall we, you know, I think picking up Norma's point, it may be that we have a, you know, clearly we're going into territory where it may be commercially sensitive or whatever and such like. It may be worth getting a briefing from yourself and then maybe a confidential report if it's required in the future, because, again, I agree with Norma. Sometimes you need to invest and not necessarily make a profit, because there's other unforeseen benefits that come with it as well. So, you know, it's just knowing, and I don't want to go into each individual one, but it may be worth, as you said, a briefing at some stage would be very useful. Chair, I'll leave it to you to maybe make contact with me if you want. Yeah, I will. Yeah, okay. And we can discuss what that briefing looks like. What I would say is that all of our loans have been designed to be repaid and interest is payable on them. There is no built-in expectation at the point of making them that there will be a loss. So, we can talk, Chair. No, you know, I think, thank you for that assurance, Myron. I think that's the main thing that we require. So, is there any other comments at all? The recommendation is to note the report on Treasury management activities for 2324 and provide comments to Cabinet. I don't think there are any comments, really, just to say it's a very constructive and valued report, very clear, and to thank the officers for delivering it. So, thank you very much, both. Someone prepared to move, please? Thank you, Gavin. Seconder? Don, Jason, thank you. Anyone against? No. Next item is the internal audit annual report, 2324. So, Chair, thank you. I'll just do the intro, then I'll pass over to Pauline, I believe, who's going to do it. Yeah, and we've also got Linda Rees about. So, Dan, new Institute of Law, is on leave this week, so he'd be doing this himself. But this is the standard end of the report on the work of the audit team for 2324. You'll all know that we've had a very difficult year, and in the first quarter, we obviously lost a lot of staff from the internal audit team. SWAP, South Wales Audit Partnerships, were brought in to fill that gap, and also a chief internal auditor role, as well. We have had a very, very successful year, and, you know, the corporate risk that came from that at the beginning of the year has now been, is now off the corporate risk register, because SWAP have stepped in and actually delivered a lot of the audit plan. So, the efficiency for certain that they brought to the process has been very impressive, and certainly, you know, myself, the executive team, and yourselves as a committee in the past have commented very positively on how that's kind of worked. So, this is the end of your report. There is an overarching assessment of reasonable, given based on all of the work. I won't go into it in any more detail, otherwise I'll say everything that Pauline is probably going to be saying. So, over to you now, Pauline. Thank you. Thank you, Marion, and it's nice to be here. Thank you for inviting me to this committee. I would just like to say the overall opinion, yes, is a reasonable opinion. It's based on the outcome of the reviews formed across the year. These are detailed in page 111, paragraph 9, and also in Appendix B of the report. There was a total of 46 assurance reviews, with 13 reviews ongoing from 22, 23, all completed, and along with 33 of the 23, 24 reviews completed. Paragraph 11 explains that, overall, the outcomes from the review has mainly been positive. There are four limited opinions. Private sector housing, silent seekers impressed account, adoption allowances follow-up, and the passenger's unit follow-up. Just to note that the passenger's transport unit follow-up has now been addressed through the delivery of a second follow-up, which has provided a substantial opinion. With the private sector housing and the silent seekers impressed account reports, these were finalised in March 2024 and therefore have not been called before you. I think it's normal that these limited reports will come to the committee, so I think the plan is that they'll come in July. Dan had wanted to mention, obviously, the audit resource, and obviously the second part of the year in particular has obviously delivered a significant number of audits that has obviously reduced the corporate risk sitting in the corporate risk register. Page 112, Paragraphs 18 and 19 refer to the counter-fraud awareness. It shows that there is awareness that counter-fraud arrangements require strengthening within the authority and provides details of the plan to do so. A report on the counter-fraud will be brought to the Governance and Audit Committee in July. In page 112 also, Paragraphs 20 and 21 explains the internal audit required to comply with the public sector internal audit standards and gives five years of an assessment against these standards required to ensure ongoing compliance. We're currently undergoing an external assessment against these standards. The outcome of this report will be reported back to the committee once it's available. Dan has advised that the assessor's initial findings is that there are no non-conformances to be concerned about. He is expecting a general conformed rating, which is the top rating. That's all I have. If you can highlight, if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you, Pauline, and welcome. Thank you for back-filling Dan. He's got the best part of it. I hope you approved his leave, Marion, to go off on leave. Do we have any questions? Norma? Thank you, Chair. First of all, to complement the team on the performance. I think it's been a difficult year, but I think the performance has been excellent. I just found it very odd when I read 96% of management actions implemented, and I thought that's quite good. I've raised this before about actions falling behind, so that looked good. But the caveat worried me because it says it indicates that this may not be so and cannot be checked due to resources. I understand the resource difficulty, but then I thought this caveat sort of indicates to me that it's likely there is not 96% and it could be a lot lower, and that worried me. You probably can't give me an answer, but it just raised concerns because I raised previously my concern about management not doing their actions and not responding to audit, which I find totally unacceptable. But we actually had that discussion in previous audit committees. It makes your job really hard when management don't respond to you and actions get delayed. So then that was an indication of poor performance in a number of areas, and then there's this worry that this 96% may not be accurate, shall I say. There's a comment more than expecting an answer, but I don't mind anyone wanting to say something. I was just going to say, Chair, that clearly we can't go and check on every audit report again to make sure, and therefore we have a self-checking, self-certification process which we think is an efficient way of kind of doing it because we do need some assurance that management actions are being done. Clearly they will be checked again when there's a subsequent audit done. That can be a number of years down the line, as we all know, and therefore for kind of efficiencies for the sake, that self-certification really process is kind of what we follow. It just isn't possible to do it in any other way. It would take up too much of the audit's time, and we would be doing less audits, which we think on balance is not the right approach. There is nothing to suggest that managers out there are lying or being over-optimistic about what they are doing. I couldn't prove that to you, of course, because it is a self-certification process, but from what we know of our services and of our colleagues, we don't believe that there's anything untoward going on when they do say that they've done things or not done things. So, I hope that gives some assurance, but I do get your point, Norma. It's just one of those things that we have to live with, unfortunately. Norma? Can I just come back on that? Yeah, I understand. I'm quickly running through my head when I was running divisions and directors, how I handled audit and my engagement with audit. I think there is a responsibility, and I understand the pressure on the audit team and wouldn't want to put any more on them because they've done a great job as they are, but it's whether those in charge of the directors are overseeing the implementation of these audit reports because it's the responsibility of those at the top as well to make sure that these actions are fully implemented. So, it might be a good thing, Marion, if you just reminded directors or heads of services their responsibilities there? Yeah, I mean, if the committee would like to make that sort of statement, then we can feedback the committee's feedback, which would be an even stronger endorsement. Yeah, I think we'll put that in the recommendation, Norma, that we ask the management team and the head of services and directors to reinforce the requirement that, you know, where there are audit recommendations that, you know, they keep on top of them, not just when they've satisfied them, but on an ongoing basis. That's the point. So, I'm sure committee would pick that up. Any other questions? Don? Yeah, first of all, I just want to echo what Norma said, that the congratulations to the audit team because this is far, far greater than ever I would have expected. So, they've done really well. My question really is to us regarding on page 111.11 with regard to the adverse reports. I know adoption allowances. I know PTU. I don't know anything about private sector housing or the asylum seekers' impressed account. You know, questions to us as a committee. Usually when we see these adverse reports, we almost have an unwritten rule that we invite the people to come in and talk to us and tell us how they got to that situation. So, I guess my question is to us as a committee, is there any reason why we wouldn't invite these people to come in and to tell us why it's adverse and what's going on? Chair, we've got Linda Rees on the kind of on the meeting ground. Linda's one of my principal auditors who, one of the ones that haven't left, and Linda's played a very key role in kind of settling in the swap auditors. I think that's really important for me to acknowledge as well as, you know, as why this year has been a successful year. Linda, do we know if those two recommendations are very recent reports that we've just finished and that's why the committee are not yet aware of them or have we just missed it? Yes, they were in March, so they were late in the year. I think Colleen said earlier that they may be called into the next audit committee in July. Fantastic. So, Chair and Dom, that's why you've not seen them yet then because they've only just been completed. So, if the committee would like to do the usual, which has been your practice, they can be called into your next meeting if you say that that is what you want. Yeah, the point would be yes, Mairi, and I think we need to see the reports first as well of what the issues are that are limited. We also need to see their action plan in regards to how they were going to deal with the recommendations that come out of the audit. But I'd endorse what Don says. I'd rather get them in sooner rather than later and, you know, advise them that we need these issues addressed as soon as possible. And then, obviously, they'll be called back at a future date to ensure that we're satisfied that the matters have been dealt with. And again, that goes to the heart of what Norma says then, that they continue to do so because, on the basis, as Don quite rightly said, it's pleasing to hear that the taxi contract, which has been reviewed, is now substantial. I think they were given a tough time when they came in here previously and, clearly, lessons have been learned and that's been put in place. My understanding is, Don, and I need to be corrected here, is that doctrine allowances are coming back again because they had a new team of people. Was that the point from last time we had them in, Don? There were two issues we were looking at, wasn't it? It was at the children's monies and the adoption allowances. They are two members of staff new and we give them some time to bed in to come back and feed back to us. That's okay. So, in regards to those issues, that's great. We haven't seen them and, clearly, we haven't seen them because they were only issued in March. So, let's get them in sooner rather later. The only other questions I've got is where we've got the limited. We've then got one, two, three, four, five, six. The opinion given is consultancy. I don't know what that is because, obviously, it's not one of the criteria. Does that mean they've gone out to consultancy or what? And, in regards to the other, it says no critical risks. What does that mean? Because, again, we've not got that as down in our audit opinions. So, I can understand and qualify because, obviously, they're similar to accounts qualified or unqualified accounts. But those issues, I'm just wondering what they mean? Well, the consultancy type reviews will be consultancy reviews. They'll be what's been asked for as part of the scope of that audit. But I don't know the details behind them. But I can certainly speak to Dan and get some more information on them. As far as the controlled self-assessments, I don't know where Linda would be able to answer that. I don't think we've been involved in them. Yeah, okay. If we can get that, you know, if they've gone out to consultancy for the audit to be done, you know, clearly then we'll be having the report back. But I just want some clarity, Myron. Yes. So, it's just terminology in the reports. So, because these two areas were in the audit plan, but the audits were going to be carried out just as the service area was going to be implementing a lot of change because of, you know, issues and et cetera in the service area, rather than doing an audit at that time, which would have been unhelpful, they actually went in to look at some of the changes that were happening and to comment and help about how effective those were, how appropriate they were. So, it's like a consultancy approach as opposed to an audit that says, you know, do these controls and check exist? If they don't, fail. If they exist, pass. That would have been unhelpful and inappropriate in those areas. And therefore, a different approach was sort of taken, which was let's understand the problem, let's understand what the service area is doing here, and let's comment and make some recommendations, which will help them make the changes. But for me, what's the difference then? You know, why is it unhelpful? If these audits were in the plan, why isn't it right and proper that the audit team go in? Because clearly, the intention of audit going in is to assist the department or the teams, you know, and put corrective action in place if it's necessary. It's a reasonably, not very, but it's a reasonably thin line between both. But rather than going in when they know that the service area is changing a lot of the way that it does things, I'm coming out with an audit opinion that is limited. So why aren't we given the opportunity to get that assurance at this committee? It may be a thin blue line or red line or green line. If they're in the audit plan, then my view is they should be dealt with in accordance with the audit principles. Lots of directorates could say, oh, well, we're going to go through a change process, don't send the auditors in. If these matters were in the audit plan, the auditors, in my respectful opinion, should have gone in. They should have found out if there are any areas of good practice, if there are areas of improvement, and then we as a committee then can make a decision as to whether or not we call them in and call them to account and actually get their service to improve. On these, the consultancy ones, presumably we don't have that opportunity of doing that. We don't even see the report. We don't see anything. And on the no critical risks, if it's the same issue, we get the same again. They're saying there's no critical risks, but are there any risks? And I think that's the issue for me, Mario, and it's, you know, we're talking about semantics here. So therefore, you know, if we're an audit committee and these are in the audit plan, then isn't it right and proper that we should have the right to challenge those matters going through this committee? Let me sit down with Dan and we will come back to you on this one. These are a different approach to the normal typical audit approach, and there are reasons why we do them. And the service areas find them helpful and they add a lot of value as do the normal assurance based orders as well. Because, you know, having a limited audit opinion is helpful because it then tells you that something's wrong and anything needs to change. This is a different way of achieving it. And as you can see, it's only a very small number where this approach was going to take. But I take your view and I acknowledge that. We'll come back and, you know, next regular updates of the audit plan and explain the difference in emphasis between both approaches. And we'll also raise, if we're doing any, I'm not aware that we're doing any this year at this time. I'm not here to nail anyone to whatever, but the issue for me is that if we're going to change the process by way some of these audit matters are to be looked at, then surely that's a matter for discussion with the governance and audit committee. Because what happens now is, we've not been told this before, it comes to this committee, you know, I'm posing some questions in regards to it. Now, if an outcome is as a result of consultancy, there's some areas for improvement to be picked up, then are you telling me that a report will come to committee which picks up these areas which have been looked at by way of consultancy, by way of report. The same in regards to critical risks or no critical risks. Because if we get into the same end game, then, you know, there's, in some respect, there's not an issue. There's a matter for us to look at and to provide that critical friend challenge. But I would have thought as a matter of courtesy, if we're going to change the way we do business, then someone should tell us as a committee. Shall I leave it there? Because you could have your discussion, and then obviously you can pick it up in due course. Yeah, I will check to see if we did, you know, mention it at all in the end. Okay. Sorry, I think Linda wanted something to say. Linda, sorry. Yeah, it's just to confirm that the report is written, and it's a position statement, so it sort of tells them the position as it is as we see it. And we do include things that they're doing, that we think they're doing right, and things that they can improve on. And there are a list of recommendations at the end of the report which they need to make comments and management actions on. So just to confirm that. But you see my point, that raises a very specific point. If there are items to be dealt with, then we should know about them as well. And we don't at the moment. So I understand what you're saying. So clearly there's a discussion to be had elsewhere. Jason. Yeah, thanks. It gives me great concern as well, because even though some of these are on the high-risk register, on the corporate register, you know, adult services, children's services, which are very, you know, which are poor at the moment, education services, and also finance as well, which that's a big, big sort of like an earmark for me as well. You know, why ain't they, if it's an order going, why have they got a consultancy as well? You know, because these are major the four big areas, even on the corporate risk register as well. So why, why is not probably. Yeah, when this is brought to us at the next, next committee meeting, can you also bring a list of the occurrences this has happened in the past as well, please? A complete list. Yeah, that, I think that relates to matters where there's been a consultancy or a no critical risk. Maybe I'm, I've been a bit lax in the past, but my apologies for that. But if it's been done in the past, it may be worth seeing what's been done. Linda, sorry. Yeah, it's okay. It's the CRSA, they sent to residential homes in children's and adult services and they sent to all schools as well. And it's a self-assessment. So they, and they have a list of controls that we would expect to be in place, covering various elements. And there's full compliance, partial compliance, or no compliance or not applicable. So they need to just determine which one applies to them. And if there's a non-compliance or partial compliance, we would expect them to explain the reason for that. And sometimes there's mitigating circumstances in place that reduce the risk that would be in place if the control wasn't in place at all. So it is a self-assessment and the risks are the three elements of risk. There's critical, significant, and moderate. Obviously critical is the worst, moderate is the lowest. And basically the self-assessments that we've received, they were no critical risks identified, but they were moderate and significant risks in some of them. And thank you for that, Linda. So you've taught me and told this committee something completely new that we were not aware of, I'm sure. So, you know, thanks for the clarity. And the problem is, that's why I've raised it. You don't know what you don't know. So I think if, you know, Myron takes it back, we can have an understanding of the way these matters are dealt with. So it gives us the certainty and the assurances that we can move this forward. And obviously, if there are critical risks or, you know, areas for improvement or whatever it is, then we can deal with them as a committee. So it's just squaring that circle and getting the right governance correct in regards to dealing with these matters. Okay. Are there any other comments? No. So the recommendations are that the annual audit report 2324 and the annual audit opinions be noted and obviously endorsed by the governance and audit committee. But clearly, I think we need to pick up the issues that are raised in regards to these consultancy and no critical risk matters moving forward. And then Myron, if you could provide or Dan can provide a report for the next committee, even if it's the update, to cover those issues so that we have an understanding of what is actually going on and whether they'll be used in the future. And if they are, at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone prepared to move? Thank you, Gavin. Can I have a seconder? Thank you, Jason. Anyone against? Nope. Thank you. Item 11 then is the work program. We've got the work program before us. Clearly, are there any comments on that? Obviously, the call-ins will have to be added to the July committee because, again, I think we've got others coming in in September, the other call-ins in September. So that would be useful. And Tracy may be setting up a bit of training as well for the new members and refresher for us elder members. Yeah, I suggest that, Jane. There were a few people who couldn't attend. So we'll set up a date either ahead of the next committee or perhaps because it's in the summer ahead of the one after. And to confirm those audit call-ins will be on the amended work program. That's lovely. Thank you very much. So subject to that, we ask to endorse the proposed schedule, which we suggest we do. And then we confirm the list of people which we've got for the next committee. And obviously, we need the reports to consider before we look at the individuals before they come in. Marion? Chair, committee, it would be remiss of me not to mention that this is Rob's last meeting at Germantown Audit. He is sadly leaving Newport for a role at Torvine Council. So with the promotion, very well deserved. So I just wanted to just mention that, in case you wanted to say a word or two. But clearly, the committee have benefited a lot from sort of Rob's words and explanations, et cetera, over the last three years. And it'll be sad to see him go. But we're pleased that he's going for a well-deserved promotion. Thank you for that, Mike. You jumped in before I actually got a mover and a second there on my forward work program. So you were a bit preemptive. That was a preemptive strike, I reckon, tonight. So just to pick up that last one. The other one is we're expecting a report from Myrien on the audit, the housing benefit report and that. I think we just need a report on that. So someone prepared to move, please? Thank you. Can I have a seconder? Thank you. Or anyone against? No? Okay. Matthew, did you want something to say? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Just briefly, there's probably a couple of items we can add to the forward work program from Audit Wales perspective. But we can pick that up outside the meeting and ensure it's covered going forward. One of them being the audit plan at the July meeting. Lovely. Thank you. You'll expect a message from Audit Wales to pick up the reports and that. They're getting out next time. Anyway, Robert, sorry, I apologize. I didn't want to steal Myrien's thunder there. Firstly, many congratulations on your promotion and moving up the tour vine. I'm sure we all wish you well. And if you serve them as well as you serve us on the committee, I'm sure you'll be well respected up there. Clearly, you will be missed by us. I think many people say that the quality of the reports that come from you and your team are really thoughtful and certainly explain things in reasonably clear language, plain English, because as I always say, local government finance is a bit like a dark art, really. So maybe you're going to get your wand up in tour vine and work your magic up there as well. But can I just say thank you very much. We do wish you well. I don't know whether any other committee want to say it. You've been a well respected member of governance, Nordit, certainly for as long as I've been chairing it, and I'm sure a long time before. Clearly, I expect you're leaving a legacy. We've got people I'm sure will hopefully take over the baton, but just to wish you well in your future. Okay, I think the next meeting is the 25th of July. And on that note, can I thank all members of the committee for their contribution this evening, and it was greatly appreciated. Can I thank our colleagues from Audit Wales. Pauline, thank you very much for attending. Linda, again, thank you as well, because we haven't seen you before. And can I say the meeting is now closed.