Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: That Gavin McArthur be appointed Chair for the 2025/26 municipal year, and Chris Burns be appointed Deputy Chair.
RESOLVED: - To make any relevant recommendations for changes to the draft Self-Assessment Report 2024/25, to be submitted via a formal letter from the Committee Chair;
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED: - To note that the Unaudited Draft Statements of Account 2024/25 are to be circulated and highlight any queries and comments; - To note that following the external audit, the Final Statements and the Audit of Accounts (ISA260) reports for 2024/25 will be reviewed by this Committee, prior to consideration by Council.
RESOLVED: - To note the contents of the Internal Audit and Investigation Team Progress Reports; - To approve a correction to the Audit Plan 2025/26, to include a 15 audit of ‘Welsh Language Standards’, replacing the duplicate entry of ‘Homelessness – Temporary Accommodation’; - That the Audit Manager meet with the Head of Democratic Services to agree the principles for notifying Scrutiny Officers where there are audit reports with impaired Audit Opinions.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted, including: - The opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s framework of governance, risk management and control together with a summary of the work supporting the opinion; - The statement of the level of conformance with the required Standards and the results of the QAIP that support the statement.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED: - That two minor changes be made to the Annual Report of the Governance & Audit Committee 2024/25; - That the Annual Report be approved.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That the correspondence update be noted.
RESOLVED – That the work programme update be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That Gavin McArthur be appointed Chair for the 2025/26 municipal year, and Chris Burns be appointed Deputy Chair.
The Committee was asked to appoint a Chair and Deputy Chair for the municipal year 2025/26. RESOLVED: That Gavin McArthur be appointed Chair for the 2025/26 municipal year, and Chris Burns be appointed Deputy Chair.
It was noted that Council, on 22nd May, appointed the following Members to the Committee: Independent Members: Gavin McArthur, David Price, Janet Wademan and Chris Burns Councillors: Saleh Ahmed, Rodney Berman, Peter Bradbury, Kate Carr, Jayne Cowan, Margaret Lewis, Mary McGarry and Marc Palmer
Apologies were received from David Price and Cllr Cowan.
There were none.
Members noted that ‘Senedd’ had been spelled wrong in the previous minutes. With that change in mind, the minutes of the 25th March meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: - To make any relevant recommendations for changes to the draft Self-Assessment Report 2024/25, to be submitted via a formal letter from the Committee Chair;
The Committee received a report providing the Council’s draft Self-Assessment Report for 2024/25 and the Chief Executive view of the council’s control environment. The Chairperson welcomed Paul Orders (Chief Executive), Gareth Newell (Head of Performance & Partnerships) and Dylan Owen (OM Policy and Improvement) to the meeting. The officers gave a presentation outlining the planning and performance framework and annual wellbeing report, the control environment, areas of progress and improvement priorities, service and budget reviews, and the panel performance assessment. Members were advised that the overall assessment was that the performance and assurance frameworks in place were robust, having evolved iteratively year-on-year. The Council was policy-driven, with clearly defined corporate objectives. The self-assessment process had involved senior managers, Cabinet, scrutiny committees and the Governance & Audit Committee. Officers explained that the process drew on a range of internal and external performance information, the adequacy of which was continually assessed in order to identify challenges and take corrective action. The proposed amendments to the senior management structure were referenced, designed to ensure they remained fit for purpose and aligned with the challenges and opportunities ahead. The delivery of organisational objectives continued to be supported by a sound performance, governance, financial and wider control framework. A service and budget review programme was in place, having been started earlier than usual in the face of the very challenging predicted financial settlement twelve months ago. Budgets and services were comprehensively assessed, with all service areas undergoing self-assessment and informing development of the 2025/26 Corporate Plan and change programme. Officers highlighted the importance of the assessment being underpinned by corporate data and business intelligence, and emphasised good governance and a focus on core services. A sector-led Performance Panel Assessment was underway at the time of the meeting, as was required every electoral cycle. This would seek to get a snapshot of how the authority discharged its duties in strategic and operational terms. The Chair invited questions and comments from the Committee, which are summarised as follows: Members thanked officers for their comprehensive report and presentation, and noted their view that the council’s performance management arrangements were robust. Members asked how the wellbeing objectives were assessed, and heard that the aim was to provide an evaluative assessment of performance based on a consideration of a range of intelligence sources. The evaluation was subject to refinement and had in the past been amended to reflect feedback from the Committee, but officers acknowledged that, if it was considered necessary, a more expensive narrative could be included. Officers added that Audit Wales had looked at the planning side of the performance framework and didn’t have any recommendations, commenting on their good use of data and the collaborative approach to plan development. Benchmarking was recognised as an important part of performance evaluation, a point raised by the scrutiny performance panel, and trend data was now provided on the corporate dashboard. Members suggested that there could be greater clarity about the metrics to measure objectives 4 and 5, but acknowledged that most steps in the risk register were amber and green. Members suggested that the report focused on Cardiff Council’s contribution to its wellbeing objectives. They felt that the level of joined up partnership working between the public and voluntary sectors and wider parties could be given a greater level of attention within the report and captured more clearly. Members were advised by officers that the council’s partnership arrangements were strong. They worked in tandem with partners and consistently sought to ensure aligned objectives and similar policy planning arrangements. Members noted the budget challenges faced by schools and asked whether the report painted a sufficient picture of this issue and its consequences for the quality of education. Officers explained that it was a broad and in many cases retrospective report assessing the performance of the council across the last twelve months, and felt that it provided a reasonable picture of both the pressures on schools and the extra places that had been provided. Members noted that while the results of the staff survey were positive, with over 80% of employees being aware of the council’s key priorities, this also meant that around 20% of the workforce were not aware and would benefit from further engagement. Officers acknowledged that there was a need for continuing enhancement of staff engagement work, which required corporate and directorate level engagement, but in general they felt the survey results were broadly positive. RESOLVED: - To make any relevant recommendations for changes to the draft Self-Assessment Report 2024/25, to be submitted via a formal letter from the Committee Chair;
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Committee received a financial update, presented by Chris Lee (Corporate Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer), and information on the planned replacement of the Council’s Financial System by Dean Thomas (Operational Manager - Information Governance, Transactional Finance & Programme Management in Resources, Finance). The Corporate Director of Resources explained that the key overspends in the outturn report had been in education, economic development and children’s services, though there was a balanced budget position overall. In capital terms, there was significant slippage in the general fund, with £197m expenditure with a variance of £199m against initial programme assumptions, reflecting delays in areas like the indoor arena. A budget gap of around £40m was projected in 2026/27, and they expected the provisional settlement earlier than usual this year to provide greater certainty in terms of funding. A maximum 5% council increase would cover around £10m of this gap, so there would still be a savings requirement and a need to maximise efficiency opportunities in the change programme. The Chair invited questions and comments from the Committee at this point, which are summarised as follows: Members noted the capital slippage into future years and asked whether this affected the ongoing viability of any major projects, considering inflation as well as existing cash flows. Officers explained that all that work would have been considered as part of the existing capital programme agreed in March, but these schemes were constantly reviewed. Members welcomed the level of detail provided, in particular the graphs giving a clearer indication of how the situation was expected to develop over the next few years as the change programme was implemented. They emphasised the importance of sustainability and asked how the council would ensure individuals weren’t left behind by the move towards service digitalisation and automation. Officers acknowledged the need to keep existing channels open where possible, but noted that bringing people online tended to enable both savings and quicker responses. The Committee discussed the Core Office Strategy and in particular its impact on annual costs. Officers explained that a detailed report would come forward in the autumn with a full business case, but suggested that the cost of not acting were likely to be considerably higher. Officers continued their presentation, noting that the SAP financial system used by the council since 2005 was approaching end of life and no longer aligned with their strategic and digital ambitions. The Council also used DigiGOV for HR and Talentlink for recruitment. A project team had been set up and the Council had engaged with Civiteq to assess the case for replacing the above systems and to recommend a way forward for the future delivery of core Finance, Procurement, HR and Payroll services. As this was a significant system change, they were currently preparing options and taking an outline business case forward in September or October before going out for procurement. It would then take up to two years to implement and fully optimise the system. Officers emphasised that local authorities had done this badly in the past and had significant financial risk as a result, so they were following a very structured process wherein system requirements were agreed before functional workshops, preparing a detailed procurement plan, preparing for market engagement and mapping out the key processes and internal resources required. Members asked about the governance, risk management and project methodology behind a project of this scale. Officers explained that a project board had been established and they were considering how best to involve the Governance & Audit Committee, as well as the Policy Review & Performance Scrutiny Committee. They were finalising the governance arrangements with Civiteq, and this was likely to come back to the Committee to allow them to view the different workstreams. On the risk side of things, they would use a dedicated project management database with a risk register for each workstream as well as an overarching register for the project. Project leads had been identified and would give regular updates. Members asked whether internal and external audit would be involved as necessary, and heard that the Internal Audit Manager sat on the board as a non-decision-making member, and would be joining the steering group on the same basis. He would direct audit resources and get further involved as needed. Members noted that it was a complex program and suggested that it would be useful to hear from Civiteq as sector specialists about what they had learned from undertaking similar projects of this nature. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: - To note that the Unaudited Draft Statements of Account 2024/25 are to be circulated and highlight any queries and comments; - To note that following the external audit, the Final Statements and the Audit of Accounts (ISA260) reports for 2024/25 will be reviewed by this Committee, prior to consideration by Council.
The Committee received a report providing an opportunity for Members to review and comment on the Draft Statements of Accounts for Cardiff Council (including Harbour Authority and Trust Funds) and Cardiff and the Vale Pension Fund prior to their consideration by Council. Anil Hirani, Operational Manager, Capital, Corporate and Treasury was invited to present the report. He noted that several appendices were not in Members’ packs but would be circulated to the Committee shortly after the meeting. The Committee had heard what was expected in the draft accounts back in March, with accounts now having been sent to Audit Wales to commence their audit in line with the Audit Plan to be considered by the Committee later in the agenda. The public inspection period had begun as required, and would continue until 22nd August. Members could feed back in the same extended period and get guidance and support from officers if needed. The Chair thanked officers for their work in meeting the tight deadline. RESOLVED: - To note that the Unaudited Draft Statements of Account 2024/25 are to be circulated and highlight any queries and comments; - To note that following the external audit, the Final Statements and the Audit of Accounts (ISA260) reports for 2024/25 will be reviewed by this Committee, prior to consideration by Council.
Part of an issue followed across 4 meetings
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: - To note the contents of the Internal Audit and Investigation Team Progress Reports; - To approve a correction to the Audit Plan 2025/26, to include a 15 audit of ‘Welsh Language Standards’, replacing the duplicate entry of ‘Homelessness – Temporary Accommodation’; - That the Audit Manager meet with the Head of Democratic Services to agree the principles for notifying Scrutiny Officers where there are audit reports with impaired Audit Opinions.
The Committee received a report providing an update on the work and performance of the Internal Audit and Investigation Teams, in the period from 1st March to 30th June 2025. Chris Pyke (Internal Audit Manager) highlighted that until the end of the last financial year (the end of March 2025) they had operated within the Public Sector Audit Standard, and were now operating under the Global Internal Audit Standards in the UK public sector. The Chair invited questions and comments from the Committee, which are summarised as follows: Members noted that one school audit had recently been assessed as ‘unsatisfactory’ and explored how this, along with ‘insufficient’ and ‘improvement needed’ results were reported into the Council. The Internal Audit Manager clarified that most of these were draft audits issued in March, and that for an opinion of ‘insufficient with improvement needed’ to be assigned, there would need to be at least one significant compliance or control matter identified. He added that the Cabinet Member had been alerted to the ‘unsatisfactory’ result, though management at the school had not yet responded. He advised that there was a commitment to advising Principal Scrutiny Officers of ‘unsatisfactory’ opinions, and advised that he would discuss with the Head of Democratic Services whether reports assessed as ‘insufficient with major improvement needed’ should also be communicated in this way. The Chair noted that there would soon be a change of leadership at the school in question, and suggested that the Committee could write to them to encourage a prompt management response and an effective handover to the new management. Members discussed how other schools could monitor the progress of ‘unsatisfactory’ audits so they could avoid the same issues. The Internal Audit Manager explained that this work was linked to the control risk self-assessment exercise completed with all schools last year, for which senior audit staff had been engaged to provide advice and guidance based on the returns received. There was an intention to hold sessions in the autumn with school finance staff on updates to Financial Procedure Rules for Schools, and they would build in findings and advice from these audit exercises as part of that. Members queried the mention of ‘coding principles’ and heard that this was a way of more accurately reflecting the time spent on audits. RESOLVED: - To note the contents of the Internal Audit and Investigation Team Progress Reports; - To approve a correction to the Audit Plan 2025/26, to include a 15 audit of ‘Welsh Language Standards’, replacing the duplicate entry of ‘Homelessness – Temporary Accommodation’; - That the Audit Manager meet with the Head of Democratic Services to agree the principles for notifying Scrutiny Officers where there are audit reports with impaired Audit Opinions.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted, including: - The opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s framework of governance, risk management and control together with a summary of the work supporting the opinion; - The statement of the level of conformance with the required Standards and the results of the QAIP that support the statement.
The Committee received the Internal Audit Annual Report for 2024/25. Chris Pyke (Internal Audit Manager) explained that the report provided an account of the work of internal audit that supported an overall opinion of the Council’s control environment. The overall view was considered to be effective overall assurance, with opportunity for improvement. He highlighted that assurance work, as well as advisory work (when no formal audit opinion was given) was taken into account in forming this view. He highlighted the importance of the quality assurance and the improvement program in place to underpin the work of the audit service, which was operating effectively. The Chair invited questions and comments from the Committee, which are summarised as follows: Members queried what would happen if the recommendations of the auditors were not welcomed by the recipient. The Internal Audit Manager acknowledged that there were some audits where discussion was needed to agree a course of action, but disagreement was rare, and in most cases due to a lack of understanding of how a recommendation would help a service area. Members asked what would happen for the audits planned for 2024/25 that were either deferred or cancelled by the year end. The Audit Manager referred to table 17 on page 207 of the report, where this detail was provided. Audits were not automatically carried forward into the next year’s audit plan if not completed. Where audits were not carried forward, in some cases assurance had been gained through other sources or work during the year, and in other cases there was now a greater audit need in other areas. RESOLVED – That the report be noted, including: - The opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s framework of governance, risk management and control together with a summary of the work supporting the opinion; - The statement of the level of conformance with the required Standards and the results of the QAIP that support the statement.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Committee received the Annual Audit Plan for 2025. The Chair invited Sara-Jane Byrne (Audit Wales) to the meeting, who explained that the Audit Plan covered both the financial audit and performance audit work, and assessed the materiality of both core and group account audits, as well as key risks like the pension fund and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) around leases. The timetable set out that they intended to report in October. The Chair suggested that in the future it would be useful to have a brief cover report provided by council officers to clarify the Committee’s terms of reference with regard to the item. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Committee received the Audit Plan for the Cardiff and Vale Pension Fund for 2025. Sara-Jane Byrne and Martin Gibson (Audit Wales) explained that this was similar to the previous item, setting out risks, materiality, the testing that would be undertaken and the timetable, with regard to the pension fund. They noted that the 2023/24 annual report had been submitted late, with timeliness raised as a risk, and they were having frequent conversations with the council to keep track of this. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Committee was asked to consider the report and the management response relative to its responsibility. The Audit Wales officers explained that a local report had been produced at each of the 22 Welsh local authorities, with a further report to come covering the whole national picture, drawing on all 22 and highlighting examples of good practice for shared learning. The review did not extend to procurement or contract management activities, but in this case commissioning meant the decision-making process that the Council used to decide how it delivered its services. They had assessed the Council’s corporate arrangements for commissioning, and how this helped them secure value for money. Officers acknowledged the challenging context faced by many authorities across Wales. There were many positive aspects to the report, with those that were recommended as needing improvement highlighted here. They noted that commissioning arrangements did not require comprehensive options appraisals, and only one service they examined considered different options. The Council also did not always consider long-term needs, or how these would be balanced with short-term needs. Arrangements did not necessarily require service areas to consider whole life costs, nor the wellbeing of partner organisations. Officers suggested that with those particular shortcomings in mind, the council did not have comprehensive arrangements in place to assure itself that it consistently got value for money. They made three recommendations: to strengthen existing commissioning arrangements; to ensure the Council’s corporate approach to commissioning was consistently used across service areas, and to ensure the Council identified opportunities to improve value for money. The Corporate Director of Resources outlined the response of management, which had accepted two recommendations in full and one partially. There had been some back and forth on the outcomes of the review, and they felt there was an issue of timing of engagement with partners, due to the complex nature of partnership discussions, but had committed to undertake a review. The Chair invited questions and comments from the Committee, which are summarised as follows: Members indicated their interest in seeing the outcome of the Council’s review and how things would be taken forward, and asked when this was due. The Audit Wales officers explained that they had only just started scoping the national study, and hadn’t yet finished the local reports. They emphasised that commissioning was about achieving what you set out to achieve, and it was important to set that out among other indicators to understand service delivery. Members queried the Council’s commissioning arrangements with regard to in-house provision, in particular the risk of being required to use in-house provision even if it could be done more cost-effectively another way. The Corporate Director of Resources clarified that there were examples of externally commissioned services in areas where there was also in-house provision. Members asked whether there were examples found where the Council had not been getting value for money, and how these would be reported if so. Officers explained that they had reviewed corporate commissioning arrangements and whether they were consistently applied, tracing two services in particular with the primary focus being corporate arrangements. The two services examined did set out how they would assess value for money, but they would review where they stood. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: - That two minor changes be made to the Annual Report of the Governance & Audit Committee 2024/25; - That the Annual Report be approved.
The Committee received the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report for 2024/25, providing an account of its role, work and observations over the municipal year. Members noted a typo on page 314 to be corrected, while Cllr Berman noted that his committee information in the membership section required correction RESOLVED: - That two minor changes be made to the Annual Report of the Governance & Audit Committee 2024/25; - That the Annual Report be approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Corporate Director of Resources presented the Corporate Risk Management (Year End) report providing an update on the risk management position at Quarter 4 of 2024/25 and highlighting any changes from the Q3 2024/25 report. The Chair also welcomed Dean Thomas (Operational Manager - Information Governance, Transactional Finance & Programme Management in Resources, Finance) and Matthew Tudball (Risk Manager), who explained that as of Q4 there were 270 risks in total reported by directorates. They noted the escalation process and the role of the Senior Management Team and risk champions, and explained that some of the corporate risk descriptions had been amended to be more concise and clear. They highlighted a change in risk regarding ensuring access for education places due to short-term pressures in that area, and emphasised that budget monitoring and financial resilience risks were reviewed on a regular basis. Officers added that they intended to produce an annual report in line with the other Core Cities, which would come to the Committee in September. This would give risk owners a chance to explain what been achieved during the year, and reinforce the organisation’s risk management strategy. They also added that there would be a Teams seminar for Members on horizon scanning on 9th September, as requested by the Committee. Members asked whether the consistency of risk management reports could be improved, and heard that they would consult with risk champions and review the way appendices were presented. Feedback and engagement with risk champions was very positive, supported by training sessions and face-to-face meetings wherever possible. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Corporate Director of Resources noted that there had been a query around business continuity planning at the last Committee, highlighting that 85% of plans were up to date rather than 100%. As a result of this, they had engaged with colleagues from Emergency Planning, whose feedback was that there was a council-wide responsibility for individual OMs to keep their plans up to date. All the fundamental plans that needed to be in place were, but they would take a report to the Senior Management Team stressing the importance of this in order to get compliance up. The Chair added that following the last meeting he had spoken to Mel Godfrey (Director of Education and Lifelong Learning) as requested by the Committee, and had been reassured as to the activity taking place. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Part of an issue followed across 8 meetings
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the correspondence update be noted.
The Internal Audit Manager highlighted the letter from the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee in June on the topic of school budgets, as this was an area of interest to the Committee. He proposed that the Committee take account of the work of this scrutiny committee. RESOLVED – That the correspondence update be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the work programme update be noted.
The Internal Audit Manager noted that the senior officer control environment updated were scheduled based on a draft structure that was out for consultation at the moment, so this was subject to approval. The order of Directors had been included based on a standard cycle so no one Director had currently been scheduled to attend more frequently than anyone else, but the Committee could consider when changes were needed. RESOLVED – That the work programme update be noted.
There were none.
16th September 2025. The Chair advised that he would be unavailable for that meeting, so Chris Burns (Deputy Chair) would chair it.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.