Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed By Member John Brautigam and Seconded by Member Cllr Pete Lewington.
Apologies for absence received from Committee Members: Lay Member Gareth Hall, County Councillors Chris Walsh and William Powell. Apologies for absence received from officers: Jane Thomas (Director of Corporate Services and S151 Officer), Derwyn Owen (Audit Wales) and Gareth Jones (Audit Wales).
Background: The Committee resolved to authorise the Chair to sign the minutes as a true reflection of the meeting held on 27th July 2024. Issues Raised by the Committee: Responses Received: An update was provided regarding the Red Dragon Report. Committee Members thanked the officers and Chair for the meeting that was held and noted that some points remained outstanding, which were being investigated by the Section 151 Officer. Clarification was requested relating to page nine of the draft minutes; assurance and confirmation was sought from SWAP that enough information was provided in whistle blowing cases for opinions to be passed. The Assistant Director to SWAP explained that Internal Audit was one avenue to investigate whistle blowing complaints. If there was an internal investigation, the Section 151 Officer would share issues that had arisen. It was informal but there was a process. Through investigations did SWAP receive enough information to be satisfied that an opinion could be passed? Yes, SWAP was happy in terms of knowledge and questioning. Regarding the risk ASC0064; ‘Welsh Community Care Information System (WCCIS)’, the Chair of Governance & Audit committee contacted the Health & Care Scrutiny committee to seek assurance that this risk was being thoroughly scrutinised. The Health and Care committee offered assurance that this was being done. ACTION – Governance and Audit Committee shared concern that the scoring of the risk still did not reflect experience, and it was agreed that the Strategic Equalities and Risk Officer would ask senior officers to reconsider the scoring of this risk as the strategic risk reviews were conducted and updated. The Director of Social Services and Wellbeing provided an update on Risk ASC0064: The expressions of interest had closed, and the tender process was due to close at the end of September 2024, when evaluation of tender would commence. The service was looking to award in November 2024. Assurance was given that data cleansing had begun to ensure data in the current system was able to be moved. Regarding the national programme of connecting care, weekly SRO national meetings were attended. Many other work streams were supported and attended. Colleagues from social services, digital procurement and finance were working on this project. This risk had been reevaluated for quarter 2 and would be presented to the committee in the Quarter 2 Strategic Risk Management Report.
Background: • This report was presented by the Strategic Equalities and Risk Officer. • The purpose of the report was to set out the Council’s quarter 1 position on managing its key risks contained in the Strategic Risk Register. • At the end of quarter 1 there were 14 risks on the Strategic Risk Register. • Further details on the progress and mitigation of each risk could be found in Appendix A. • Planning and regulatory services sought to escalate one risk: risk reference PPP0014. It was rated at 15, controls and reasoning for the escalation were listed under Section 3.5 in the paper. • The recommendation could be read in full under point 10. • There were no other recommendations. Issues Raised by the Committee: Responses Received: The committee highlighted a potential new risk; during the Single Transferrable Vote Consultation Process, multiple responses could be inputted per person, potentially skewing results. It was asked whether this was true, what controls were in place and whether the data collected so far was usable. The Head of Business Intelligence and Governance answered: Yes, on the ‘Have your Say’ page of the website, members of the public could submit responses more than once to consultations. It had been piloted in the past to request email addresses from respondents, but this reduced the level of public engagement. Assurance was provided that quality checks were performed around the data used from consultations and duplicate responses were removed. The committee requested information regarding the number of duplicate responses received. For the survey being discussed, the number of duplicate responses received was around 4%. The Head of Business Intelligence and Governance had spoken to the engagement officer around this and could provide more information. It was asked whether the risk regarding council tax collection should be increased. The Interim Head of Finance answered that this did not need to be escalated to a strategic risk. It was picked up as a service risk, a close eye was kept on it and mitigation kept in place. The committee queried the risk level for SRRWO0021. It was asked how many vacancies the council had and if this was reflected in the risk rating. The Head of People answered that in the quarter 1 performance statistics there were 288 vacancies, which had reduced from 326 at the same time in the previous year. It was assured that this was a normal level of vacancies for local government. The risk was revisited every quarter, and the service were satisfied with the risk level. The Chair reiterated that due to the significance and profound strategic importance of Sustainable Powys to the future of service provision and the financial sustainability of Powys County Council, it may merit inclusion on the Strategic Risk Register. The committee asked where risks relating to individual projects in the Local Development Plan were documented. Would these be listed in the Strategic Risk Register or within their individual project plans? The Chief Officer of Place explained that risks specific to projects would be listed inside the project plans and escalated if they could not be controlled.
Background: • The Principal Fraud Investigator for SWAP presented the item. • The audit began as a proactive fraud review but developed into a full audit review to provide assurance of the controls and processes in place. • It resulted in 11 findings; 3 for Children’s Services, 3 for Adult’s Services and 5 for policy, administration and financial processes. • At the time, a limited and low-limited assurance was provided for the overall audit. Issues were around: • Potential decision making around direct payments. • Limited processes in place around care plan reviews being conducted in time. • Ownership of the self-managed accounts and historic information. • Fraud risk training had been provided to all staff around direct payment processes. • Since the Audit report was published, most recommendations had been rectified and new processes implemented. • The Cabinet Member for a Caring Powys added that the Direct Payment System had been the subject of many ongoing discussions due to a major review and overhaul of the system. • System and contract management improvement processes had been ongoing for some time. • The new system and processes were much easier to navigate which had resulted in increased customer satisfaction. • The Head of Adults Services added that there had been an ongoing programme of work since 2022 where a deep dive was carried out into the direct payment system including a consultation with users. • A new system was now in place, with a new providers for some of the services and some aspect of the services having been internalised resulting in better oversight. • The new system provided live data that could be accessed and audited by officers at any time. • Systems were now in place which identified requirements for audits and reviews. These were captured in monthly performance reports which could be raised with team managers through desktop data BI reports. • Regarding the WCCIS and the data management system, a lot of information had been retrieved through CIVICA and through WCCIS Test. The service was working with colleagues to identify areas of risk around data and was building findings into considerations for the new system. • The Quality Assurance and Improvement Manager for Social Services reiterated that a lot of the work was underway before it was picked up by SWAP and social services were continually looking for ways to improve and make systems robust. Issues Raised by the Committee: Responses Received: The committee asked whether SWAP could revisit this in 3-6 months to review the progress made. The Head of Adults Services welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate the work that had been undertaken.
Background: The Assistant Director of Swap introduced the item: • SWAP began auditing the project roughly halfway through with the aim of aiding delivery. • The project itself was based on £13.9 million of funding secured from the UK Government’s Levelling Up Fund with the aim of revitalising a disused section of the Montgomery Canal in partnership with the Canal and Rivers Trust. Positives: • The project team had suitable skills and experience to deliver the project. • Effective project administration and governance frameworks were in place. • A risk management process was in place which highlighted key risks and identified mitigation actions. Areas the project was not meeting its goals: • Unforeseen external factors meant the project was not going to be delivered within its agreed timescale (Grant condition by March 2025). • SWAP acknowledged that flexibility was built into the original proposal, however it was likely that the original intentions were over ambitious. • There could have been a greater building in of contingencies. • Diligence was stretched at the beginning of the project due to the short call off time given to secure funding. Suggestions: • Powys County Council could create a pre-prepared list of projects where the initial diligence and project planning had already been conducted and projects would be realistic. Delivery and Drift: • The project would be underspent, causing significant uncertainty over the next steps. SWAP suggested three possibilities: • 1. Remaining funds could roll over, dependent upon the UK Government. • 2. The project could be funded by other sources, e.g. Powys County Council. • 3. The project could stop, part finished. • SWAP was keen to make sure that Powys County Council were aware of the repercussions of non-delivery. Much of the delivery was transferred to a partner but Powys County Council would ultimately be responsible financially and reputationally for project delivery. • The importance of information being passed between key stakeholders was highlighted, promoting awareness of the next stages and the ability to make informed decisions. The Programme Delivery Manager (Supporting Communities) added that: • The service was doing everything it could to mitigate issues and speed up construction within the project. • Due to the recent General Election , a hold had been put on the Project Adjustment Request (PAR) Process, which had been due to stay in place until after the autumn budget into November. • Everything was being monitored through the Programme Board and timescales and costings were being updated throughout the period. • The service was now in the position of needing to apply for a project adjustment request through UK Government, which could only be done once in a project’s lifetime. • A 6-month extension would be required to complete the project, but the service would be requesting a 9-month extension. • The service had a good relationship with the UK Government and had been encouraged to approach the commercial team to outline the situation, the impact and the risk of not obtaining an extension. • The service had all the information ready for the PAR process, although this was on hold. • The service was working with an organisation called ARUP, who were brought in by UK Government to support local authorities in project delivery. Issues Raised by the Committee: Responses Received: Committee asked if Powys County Council was currently holding the funds. Some of the funds had been drawn down through the freedoms and flexibilities process via UK Government. Some money was being held to be used on capital projects within the Local Authority. Money in the capital budget would be drawn down for the project when needed. It was assumed that if the UK Government did not give an extension, then any money that had not been spent would be returned to UK Government. Had funding been received or was it drawn down on a delivery basis? Funding had been received partially on a delivery basis. The service was able to draw down the forecasted budgets and report on actual expenditure against that. It was asked why the relevant portfolio holder had not brought this matter to the attention of the Council prior to it being picked up by auditors? The Portfolio Holder for a More Prosperous Powys answered that the process for this project was the same as any other in the Council, where the appropriate reporting was done at the appropriate time. An audit report could not have been discussed before it had been received. The Programme Delivery Manager (Supporting Communities) added that in 2022 the service received delegated authority from Cabinet for the Project Board to make all project decisions within the approved funding agreement. Furthermore, there was a Project Board and a Programme Delivery Board which were reported to. Reports and Project updates also went to the Transformation Delivery Board, the Corporate Leadership Team and to Cabinet and risks were on the JCAD Risk system. The Portfolio Holder for a More Prosperous Powys added that it had been a concern to face both a general election and a change in government when the funder was examining ways forward and it had caused many problems. But assurance was given that if the PAR was granted then the project would be ready to go ahead. Going forward the service would be required to receive approval from Cabinet as part of the PAR process. The committee reiterated the difficulty in accepting that the portfolio holder had not shared concerns with the council that the project was at risk. If the PAR was granted, would the project be completed to the same or a reduced scope? The Programme Delivery Manager (Supporting Communities) replied that the aim was to complete everything to the same standard that was planned from the outset. Due to budget issues, one nature reserve was planned to be descoped, but this possibility was written into the application to UK Government at the very beginning. The committee suggested that this project be incorporated into the Corporate Risk Register going forward. ACTION – Strategic Equalities and Risk Officer to discuss this with relevant Senior Officers and the Corporate Leadership Team. Had the project of work been ongoing for 3.5 years? Work had been ongoing for less than that due to significant delays at the beginning of the project. When did the project start? The SLA between Powys County Council and the Canal and River Trust was signed off on the 18th of August 2022. If the project had been ongoing for 2 years and had a prior phase, what had changed in terms of governance and delivery infrastructure to increase confidence that it was now possible (subject to extension) to deliver this programme of work within the next 6-9 months, given that thus far, the project and delivery infrastructure had failed to deliver? The service increased stringency on monitoring and changed review timescales to a monthly basis to increase accuracy. The team were liaising with internal departments such as Planning, Ecology and Highways to allow for advanced troubleshooting before reaching the construction stage. ARUP had begun to sense-check work regarding quantity surveying including costings and design work. Would the escalation route be to the Transformation Board? Yes, and ultimately to Cabinet. The committee encouraged the Cabinet and the Transformation Board to seek assurance regarding good governance and robust delivery and highlighted the risk of optimism bias and the lack of contingency. Page 88 of the pack, section 3.2, commented that ‘the project may not have truly understood the risk encountered and how these would impact on the overall delivery’. How could the service enter a project without fully understanding and flagging up the risks? There was a three-month window to get the application together for the grant, but there had already been long term discussions ongoing between the Local Authority and the Canal and River Trust regarding the Montgomery Canal. The application was put together using information available at the time, which was a concept design (for the bridges etc.) and the costings were based on that. Issues began to arise when design and investigation work in line with construction began. It resulted in cost increases and changes to the works which added to the project timescale. A risk register had been completed during the application process, but more risks had arisen as the project progressed and some risks turned into issues. These were being consistently monitored and reported on at Project Board Meetings. What had been learnt to stop this situation arising again on future projects? Going forward, having ‘on the shelf’ projects ready for grant applications would help. This was seconded by the Portfolio Holder for a More Prosperous Powys. It was noted that the Portfolio Holder for a More Prosperous Powys had now joined the Project Board. Concern was shared as to how the project had not come to the committee’s attention at an earlier stage. ACTION- the committee sought further assurance regarding this programme of work following the results of the PAR Process.
Background: The Report was presented by the Director of Social Services and Wellbeing. • The Board closed two actions following a review of progress against the actions in the Safeguarding Regulatory Tracker. • Over the summer the service had a follow-up inspection from Audit Wales. The report was expected by the end of October and was scheduled to come to the Governance and Audit Committee in November 2024. No comments or issues were raised by the committee.
Background: • See agenda item above. No comments or issues were raised by the committee.
Background: • The briefing was presented by the Senior Manager for Customer Services and Information Governance. • This report was a briefing to enable further understanding of the Information Management, Assurance and Governance Plan. • In 2011 the council was served with a monetary penalty notice from the Information Commissioner’s Office of £130,000 and an enforcement order in relation to cyber security and GDPR training. • This required that the council did more to understand information governance frameworks, its responsibilities and obligations to develop plans of work and activity to bring together all elements of information governance. This included compliance with legislation, management, integrity and availability of information. • As part of this work the Corporate Information Governance Group (CIGG) was created and Chaired by the Council’s Senior Information Risk Owner who was the Head of Legal and Monitoring Officer and had delegated responsibilities for information risk within the council. • The Corporate Group was attended by Directors. • The Operational Group was Chaired by the Senior Manager for Customer Services and Information Governance and attended by representatives of the service areas which allowed for a conduit of corporate elements of the organisation and the services themselves. • Work would be laid down by the Corporate Group and taken up by the Operational Group. IMAG Framework Plan • The plans and frameworks of governance offer assurance to how all County Council information was used. • The Information Management and Governance plan was reconsidered every two years. • The Freedom of Information Publication Scheme was periodically reviewed. • Each element of work had a risk rating so that risk of non-implementation or delays would be understood. • Elements were based upon legal requirements, standards of good practice, regulatory recommendations and findings from breach investigations. • The plan was approved by CIGG with quarterly updates. • Approval from CIGG was sought for all timescale changes, additional elements or deletions. • Elements were assigned owners to take activities forward. • Due to resourcing capacity and the volume of work some elements of the plan have been assigned to the 2025-2027 plan approved by CIGG. Status of IMAG Framework Plan • In September 2024, there were 40 elements to the plan. From the 40 elements, 19 (47.5%) had been completed, 20 (50%) were on track and 1 (2.5%) was behind schedule. • Examples of elements of the plan were shared with the committee. How Did the Plan Meet Information Governance Obligations? • The law required data protection impact assessments to be undertaken where the processing of personal data might result in high risks to the individual. This obligation was met via the Information Governance Annual Report and Corporate Governance Processing Agreement. Issues Raised by the Committee: Responses Received: Were there recruitment and retention issues in the service? The team was currently stable. The committee asked whether the team had the resources needed to comfortably meet all legal obligations. There were no vacancies in the team, and it was a case of developing the skills and knowledge needed to increase efficiency.
Background: The Chair noted that the account seminars and formal consideration of the accounts would take place in November, not October and this would be reflected in the Forward Work Programme. Issues Raised by the Committee: Responses Received: It was agreed that ‘working group updates’ would be a standing item on the agenda going forward. It was requested that the Scrutiny Officers decide whether the October meeting would go ahead.
Background: • The last meeting was held 18th September 2024. • At that meeting the details of the case studies to be undertaken were agreed. • At the next meeting Cllr Pete Lewington and the Professional Lead Human Resources Management and Development Officer would present the results of their assessment of these case studies against the Whistleblowing Governance Assurance Framework. • These results would be brought to the Governance and Audit Committee in the form of a report at the November meeting. No issues were raised by the committee.
Background: • The group met in August 2024. • The meeting was a stock take of how Audit Board was performing and how best to keep members informed of progress, particularly the management of actions against recommendations. The Assistant Director for SWAP gave thought to how this information could be provided to members in a clear and accessible form. • Moving forward the working group would be looking at reports where there were remaining challenges or particularly limited reports so that the group could carry out detailed examinations. • The Assistant Director for SWAP added that another key focus area was around action tracking and management tracking. A report was prepared and sent to management at Powys County Council to show the number of outstanding actions. • Previously the Internal Audit Working Group would chase and update all actions, however a new system was rolled out at the end of August 2024 giving council members live access to actions. • Only a 10% response rate was received. Less than 10% of the live actions had been updated. The Assistant Director for SWAP would be working with the Head of Corporate Services to improve take up. • The report would come to the next meeting of the Governance & Audit Committee. • The working group decided that more formalisation was needed regarding the extension of actions and that consent for this should be sought from the Heads of Service.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed By Member John Brautigam and Seconded by Member Cllr Pete Lewington.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed By Member John Brautigam and Seconded by Member Cllr Pete Lewington.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.