Agenda and minutes

None received.

The Minutes of the previous meeting were accepted subject to the following:

Dr Barry Co-Opted Member referred to the Actions taken and suggested that the actions be tracked, which was good practice to have in the minutes as well as an action log to see what was happening after each meeting.

The Chief Internal Auditor added that the actions from the previous Minutes were noted on item 17 in the Minutes, which would start the log going forward, therefore any additional actions would be noted. Dr Barry referred to two items that she had noted for the Action Table on the Audit Charter and the Fairness Commission.

Before the report was discussed, the Head of People, Policy and Transformation reminded those present that training on risk would be provided prior to the next meeting.

The Council’s Corporate Risk Register monitored those risks that may prevent the Council from achieving its Corporate Plan or delivering services to its communities and service users in Newport.  Risks were identified by Heads of Service and went through a service planning process and this was the result of the escalation of those risks by senior managers.  The full risk register was attached.

The responsibility of this Committee was to ensure that the processes in place for identifying risks was robust and operating correctly, rather than the detail of the risks themselves.

At the end of quarter four, there were 16 risks recorded in the Corporate Risk Register that were considered to have a significant impact on the achievement of the Council’s objectives and legal obligations. At the end of quarter 4 there were no corporate risks closed and two risks (In-year Financial Management & Safeguarding Risk) de-escalated from the Corporate Risk Register.

Overall, there were nine Severe risks (risk scores 15 to 25) and seven Major risks (risk scores 7 to 14) that were outlined in the report.

The role of the Governance and Audit Committee was to review and monitor the corporate governance and risk management arrangements in place, with comments and recommendations of the Committee on risk process considered by Cabinet.

Comments from the Committee:

Dr Barry, Co-opted Member appreciated the work that had been undertaken, which was clear, however one concern was that in the risk register was the action name and the action description, which were much of the same thing.  It did not say what was being done in relation to the action and when.  The Co-opted member referred to the first action as an example, the action name was to increase and improve Newport’s urban tree coverage and the action description was to increase and improve Newport’s urban tree coverage.  The Head of People, Policy and Transformation thanked the Co-opted Member for her comment and explained that the risk information was gathered from a format system called MI Hub however the comments section showed what was currently happening in relation to the risk.  What had been avoided for the Committee was a separate report that did not come out of the automated system, which was the reason for the duplication.  To clarify the Co-opted Member asked was the comment the direction of the risk, which was the case, however, the suggestion to approve the layout of the actions would assure members of the Committee about what was being done and when.  The Performance Research Business Partner, did advise that the comments would be taken on board to see how they could be improved and that there was a meeting taking place next month to look over the report and as part of the new service planning process would see if they could update the report to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Head of People, Policy and Transformation advised the Committee that this was a relatively new Report, in May 2021, the Governance and Audit Committee updated its Terms of Reference to align with the Local Government & Elections (Wales) Act 2021.  In its Terms of Reference, one of the Audit Committee’s function was to:

Receive and consider inspection reports from external regulators and inspectors and to make recommendations and where necessary monitor implementation and compliance with agreed action plans.

The Council had three external regulators: Audit Wales, Care Inspectorate Wales and Estyn; each responsible for providing assurance that the Council was fulfilling its statutory duties and providing value to the public. This report covered the regulatory activity undertaken in last six months (October to March) of 2021/22 financial year. Where recommendations were raised for local authorities to consider, an overview of the Council’s action(s) was included in the report.

Similar to the last report, actions on these were covered elsewhere; for example, the Education Service would consider their actions as part of their service planning.

There were three local reports from Audit Wales, these were audit of accounts, Cremation Committee and the improving reporting audit.  There was one national review on many authorities in Wales including Newport, as well as a small number of reviews ongoing.  The National reviews were building resilience, self-reliance in citizens, poverty review, these around springing forward regarding a Covid themed review. There were also local reviews into the Newport Intelligence Hub, which was almost completed and workforce planning, once they were completed would be reported back to the Committee.

Further actions were highlighted within the report to the committee, including focused reports on St Julian’s School, Lliswerry School and the Bridge Achievement Centre.

Comments from the Committee:

The Chair mentioned that this was similar to the point made earlier where a lot of detail was evident in other service plans, however it was not easy to navigate where to look for the information.  Whilst the position statements were all good in narrative form, they said little in reality as to what was happening. The Chair referred to the first item in regard to the Care Inspectorate Wales report and early healthcare, the report identified 17 actions. The narrative was there in regard to the position statement as part of the corporate plan and service development plan, but what was actually being done about these actions, who was monitoring them and was there a valid waiting progress around that recommendation. It was not a criticism however the issue in relation to the schools where they were taken out of special measures or Estyn monitoring, how did the Committee know they were going to improve, rather than make the same mistakes again, therefore was the Council continuing to monitor progress to ensure that action was being taken.  Dr Barry, Co-opted Member agreed with the Chair’s comments and picked up the same point on care and support of disabled children.   The Head of People, Policy and Transformation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Assistant Head of Finance went through the report for the Committee.  The Governance and Audit Committee was required to approve the final audited Statement of Accounts, which was scheduled for October this year. This report provided a copy of the draft accounts, which was signed by the Section 151 Officer (Head of Finance) and passed over to Audit Wales, who would undertake their audit of the accounts during the coming months. It was anticipated that a final, audited, set of accounts would be presented at the October meeting of the Governance and Audit Committee for committee approval.

The bulk of the report came from the Appendix, there was however a cover report which the Assisted Head of Finance highlighted for the Committee, this provided the background and the process of signing off the report.  There was a table of dates which would be of interest to the Committee.  It was noted that there was a shift in one of the dates since the report was drafted.  The public inspection would therefore commence on 15 August and not 8 August. The 27 October date would not move as this was formally agreed for the next Committee meeting.

The covering report highlighted the experiences when providing the accounts, this was in relation to the Pandemic.  There was also reference to the finance service and the impact created due to the workload, this was slightly delayed which was not an unusual occurrence to happen in most authorities.

Comments from the Committee:

Councillor Jordan went through the total expenditure for 2022-23 on page 88 and asked why the amount was £11.5M, whereby previous years, the sum was quite low, by comparison.  The Assistant Head of Finance advised that there was an actual cost and budgeted cost. One of the main aspects of capital finance and capital reporting was that there was slippage, therefore a capital programme could extend across multiple years.  Finance set a budget with a five year window based on the anticipated spend each year.  Ultimately, schemes would slip, the pandemic was a factor and could also include factors such as weather and school building project if there was a delay, or underestimating the planning for the period.   Slippage was a common occurrence and what had happened on this occasion was that we had an ambitious capital programme which had seen an increase in the anticipated spend because of the delivery of a number of high profile schemes which had pushed on the spending a number of years.  This was the highest spending by the Council in 2022-23 and this was acknowledged, at the moment we’re looking at re-profiling to reduce to a more realistic deliverable figure in this financial year.  When we report our first capital monitoring position, which would go to Cabinet in September, what you would see is a product of that re-profiling exercise.  As a result that would go down and shifted into future years.  One of the high-profile schemes was Bassaleg High school scheme and this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

This Chief Internal Auditor informed the Committee that this was the revised Internal Audit Plan for 2022-23 following a review at the last Committee meeting in May. The attached report was therefore the Operational Internal Audit Plan for 2022/23 based on an assessment of risk and available audit resources for the 12 months of the financial year.

The draft Internal Audit Plan previously presented to Governance and Audit Committee, was over-planned and under-resourced.  It had since been reviewed and allocated to the Council’s new service area structure.  Audit work was further prioritised and resources recalculated to include the support from an external resource. The proposed planned audit days to be delivered in 2022/23 now reconciled with the available audit resources.  The plan was therefore based on delivering 1073 audit days.

Internal auditing was an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organisation’s operations. It helps an organisation accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes.

It objectively examines, evaluates and reports on the adequacy of internal control as a contribution to the proper, economic, effective and efficient use of the Council's resources.

The Council's Section 151 Officer has the legal responsibility for the provision of Internal Audit.

Comments from the Committee:

The Chair considered that the report was about ensuring flexibility for Internal Audit to move their workloads should some issues become a priority.  Now that this had been addressed, Internal Audit were able to accommodate any changes going forward.

Councillor Jordan referred to Gwent Music Service which was high risk, was there an update on this.  The Chief Internal Auditor advised that it was in the plan and a position statement had been requested from the service manager and will be reported back to committee with the revised audit opinion in due course.

Resolved:

The Revised Internal Audit Annual Plan 2022/23 was noted and approved by the Council’s Governance and Audit Committee

The report provided details of decisions on the use of Standing Order 24 (decisions taken urgently) or the Waiving of Contract Standing Orders for the above period.

In consideration of this report, Members were reminded that they were not questioning the merits of the decisions taken but were focussing on why decisions were taken as urgent or why contract standing orders needed to be waived.

The Chief Internal Auditor provided background information on the reviewing of Cabinet Member Urgent Decisions and their reason for urgent decisions being explained at the Committee as well as the Waiving of Contract Standing Orders (CSOs).

The Waiving of Contract SOs referred to The Housing Support Grant, the report attached had the Chief Internal Auditor’s comments to the column on the right.  On this occasion there was no need to call-in officers or Cabinet Members but to note the report.

Comments from the Committee:

Dr Barry, Co-opted Member queried that the review and new way of commissioning would be completed by the time the extended contracts would come to an end. The Chief Internal Auditor would look into this and get back to the Committee. 

The Chair mentioned that given the report was October 2021 the length of time taken to get to the Committee there was little that could have been done in any event should anything had arisen.  The Chair therefore asked was this done in a timely manner.  Secondly, whilst the  urgency provision was used, lots of the contracts had been in place for five or six years.  Therefore surely the managers would have known that this was coming to an end.  In light of this, was there anywhere in the organisation a contracts register which would have flagged these issues up.  The Chair would want to be assured that these were going through the correct process before March 2023 and that the Committee did not want another urgent report.  Were the Head of Finance and Monitoring Officer content in dealing with the issue.  The Chief Internal Auditor explained that these reports would come to the Committee on a quarterly basis. This report had unfortunately slipped through the net and was not reported in the appropriate quarter.  On the second point yes, there was a corporate contract register and the Chief Internal Auditor would check that the contracts were on there. This was a valid comment to justify calling in the Cabinet Member and officer to explain why there was a delay in renewing those particular contracts.  The Chair mentioned that it put the relevant officers and Council in a very difficult position and there were processes in place that people needed to comply with.  The Chair would be guided by the Chief Internal Auditor on whether the Cabinet Member and Head of Service should be called to Committee, however the Chair wanted reassurance not to be in the same state as 12 months ago.  The Chief Internal Auditor would contact the Head of Service regarding this issue and would get a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The purpose of a forward work programme was to help ensure Members achieve organisation and focus on the undertaking of enquiries through the Governance and Audit Committee function. The report presented the current work programme to the Committee for information and detailed the items due to be considered at the Committee’s next two meetings.

Comments from Committee:

Councillor Cocks asked as a new member of the Committee how the work programme was set out and the contribution between officers and members.  The Head of Finance explained that the work programme was in relation to regular running reports that would be on the agenda throughout the year as well as the flexibility to add items should the committee wish, arising from discussions at future meetings.