Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff un ei ysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion. Mae'r agenda a'r papurau isod.
The CJC CEO Eifion Evans welcomed everyone to the Mid Wales Corporate Joint Committee Government and Audit Sub-Committee Meeting and introduced everyone around the room.
Apologies received – Independent Member (Powys County Council) Lynne Hamilton (LH) Ceredigion County Council Carwyn Jones-Evans (CJE) – Corporate Manager: Strategic Economy Investment / Strategic Lead – Growing Mid Wales
There were no disclosures of interests to declare relating to matters to be considered on the agenda.
As this is the first meeting the Committee members discussed who should be appointed as Chair and Vice Chair of this forum. The legislation requires that an independent member should be appointed as the Chair and Vice Chair of this meeting. Appointed Chair – Alan Davies, this was proposed by Cllr. Gareth Lloyd and seconded by Cllr. Elizabeth Evans. Appointed Vice Chair – Lynne Hamilton, this was proposed by Clive Pinney and seconded by Craig Stephenson. Alan Davies will now Chair the rest of this meeting.
The CJC Governance and Audit Sub Committee Terms of Reference (pages 3 – 5) was brought before the Committee for approval. The Terms of Reference (ToR) is an extract from Section 5 of the CJC’s Constitution. Membership of the governance of the Committee consist of one lay member from each of the Councils (Powys/Ceredigion CC) and two Councillors from each of the Councils. Also, when the Committee is considering the Strategic Development Plan (SDP) it will include a lay member from the National Parks. Typically, at least one-third of the Governance and Audit Committee consist of independent members, which this Committee has. In accordance with Section 1.5 of the ToR this Committee appointed a Chair at its first meeting – Alan Davies. The Governance Audit Committee scope is set out in Section 2 of the ToR, which DH provided a verbal overview on in the meeting. The work programme still needs to be determined, which will be discussed later in the agenda. The Committee is required to meet at least once annually, but CP recommends that this Committee meets at least bi-annually. Comments AD stated that the scope within the ToR does not mention how risk is overseen. CP confirmed risk is managed by the Committee via a Risk Register – which still needs to be produced/developed – being it is early in the operational stage of the CJC. AD queried how frequent the ‘Regularly’ monitored treasury management reports will be – 2.11 of the report. CP confirmed the reports will be monitored at each of the committee’s meetings – be this annually or biannually (twice a year). AD mentioned that there has been comments from Auditor General on the progress of CJC’s across the county, but as this is the first meeting of the Mid Wales Governance and Audit Sub-Committee and the next one will not be until December – they need to show progress. EE stated that the pace for this group isn’t absolutely necessary, as the Local Government Elections Act 2021 recommended that a ‘vehicle’ was used to fast-track decision making processes and the CJC structure was suggested – Minister Julie James stated the CJC was ‘a tool that can be utilised to whatever benefit it can provide to any regional partnership’. The CJC structure is beneficial as it allows decisions to be fast tracked, so they do not have to go through the eleven individual scrutiny committee or LA cabinets to make decisions. However, Powys CC and Ceredigion CC legal partnership already provides an alternative delivery model, so they do not need to create a separate arm’s length entity which employs its own individual staff etc. Therefore, there is currently no benefit in utilising the CJC any further than they have done so already. Thus, CJC’s budget is a nominal fee of just over £300,000 and the region does not have to employ people accountable to a separate Chief Executive, S.151 officer etc. Instead, they have a shared responsibility between Ceredigion and Powys CC - for example, the S.151 officer is Duncan Hall (Ceredigion), and the monitoring officer Clive Pinney (Powys) absorbs this work on top of their day jobs and do not get financially remunerated for it. However, there may become a time they see the added value of the CJC (putting more resources into it), but now they are taking advantage of Minister Julie James offer - which is to use as much or a little of the CJC as they want. The working relationships between the partner organisations now (inc. Brecon Beacons National Part Park) has grown to an extent where they find that the current working model serves them far better, than if they changed models. AD wants to ensure that they received no negative criticism for this. Even if there is little utilisation, he would prefer a meeting was held in a few months’ time - showing they are following the process to ensure it happens. Resourcing the CJC will be particularly challenging, so a lighter model is far more suitable. EE* queried whether the Mid Wales Growth Deal (MWGD) would be integrated into the CJC. EE confirmed that the MWGD will be separate. There are three main pillars of work which sit underneath the CJC: - · Regional Transport Planning · Economic Development at a regional level · Strategic Development Plan - for future planning opportunities. They have created three individual sub-groups for each one of these pillars. Some Partnerships have utilised the lift and shift model, where they have picked up the work (e.g., Growth Deals) and dropped it squarely into the middle. However, this creates a level of bureaucracy on top everything else. For example, from a finance perspective you would need to have a completely separate set of accounts, which would be separately audited by Audit Wales on an annual basis – the cost implications are significant because you have to pay Audit Wales a significant extra sum of money, which detracts from frontline delivery of funding. Whereas, in this model its encompassed in part of the overall financial responsibilities and accountability of the S.151 officer in Ceredigion – so they do not have to spend this extra money. Therefore, they have created a light touch model. Their approach might change if the Government suddenly starts saying they will only fund delivery services on a regional footprint and only fund directly to the CJC. If this happens, they will need to reflect on their working practices, as this would be a game changer. However, now they need to ensure they spend as little amount of time/money as possible on bureaucracy - thus maximising the benefits to frontline services. EE* queried whether TraCC would be dealt with separately from the Strategic Transport Plan – as TraCC includes Gwynedd, who are outside their partnership. EE confirmed that in relation the regional transport plans the committee decided that they would no longer include Gwynedd in their planning structures. Both LAs and Beacon have formally written to the leader of Gwyneth and explained why they will no longer be part of the old TraCC arrangement. Decision: Terms of Reference presented by CP were accepted by the group. Recommended by PL and seconded by CS.
DH provided a verbal overview of the following reports, which were provided to the members for their information. Note: going forward external auditors will come to these meeting and present the reports themselves. · CJC Board Report and 22/23 Annual Return The 2022/23 Annual Return has already been presented and signed off. Please note as the level of transactions is very low it is the annual return style of accounts, not a full statement of accounts - which are only prepared if they cross £2.5M in gross expenditure/income tax. £160,000 of contributions and a total spend of £76,000 - £77,000. Powys and Ceredigion contribute to all aspects of the CJC, while Brecon Beacons only contributes to the Strategic Planning side. The accounts have been audited by Audit Wales and fully signed off. With no matters being drawn to this committee’s attention by Audit Wales. · MWCJC 23-24 Audit Approach Letter (P15) This letter outlines Audit Wales approach and their fees. There were two levels of fees – the Accounts Audit fee (under £2,000) and the Performance Audit fee (over £2,000), which combined to an overall fee of just over £4,000. As a CJC the performance work was not requested, but Audit Wales decided to carry it out. They produced a national summary report across Wales and an individual letter for each CJC. A Financial Audit Report is the statement of accounts – if they are above £2.5M it is full-blown statement of accounts, but if they are below this amount it is a simplistic annual return). A Performance Audit Report is any other (non-financial) matter which the auditors choose to look at. For example, it could be general performance, general direction of travel of the CJC, national themes or particular issues they are focusing on (e.g., a piece of work on strategic planning, transport, economy, etc.). The theme they focused on last year was reviewing the general progress of delivery of CJCs from a wider perspective. · Letter regarding 23/24 Audit fees and CJC response. DH is Ceredigion’s and the CJC’s chief financial officer and S.151 officer – he is wearing two hats. As the CJC is a separate legal entity with its own bank account/ledger he needs to look through a different lens for them. When he received a letter from Audit Wales referring to the performance audit report and its cost. He was disappointed to be notified late on that Audit Wales was doing this piece of work and the CJC was going to have to pay the privilege of it – his response to Audit Wales is outlined on page 25 of the pack. · Report on the progress of CJCs across Wales This is Audit Wales National report on CJC’s progress. This report gave five recommendations, which are outlined fully on page 42 – 43 of the English pack. A number of these recommendations are in progress, which DH provided a verbal update on. Recommendation 1: Due to technical reasons the first meeting of the Governance and audit committee was not successful, but they are now starting to meet. – they are starting to overcome some of this recommendation. It focuses on the individual subcommittees in the CJC – the regional transport subcommittee and the strategic planning subcommittee have been set up and are running now, while the economic subcommittee is about to be up. Recommendation 2: The strategic development planning and strategic regional transport planning subcommittees are starting to address the work within this recommendation. Recommendation 3: This recommendation is a little in advance for the pace of CJC wanted to travel at and due to the challenging financial times the CJC need to be careful of how much resources it uses – as they do not want to rush things and incur extra costs. Since the Audit Wales letter, the CJC has put a corporate plan in place which includes corporate wellbeing objective. This plan when out for consultation and was adopted, so part of this recommendation has been covered. Recommendation 4: The relationship with Bannau Brycheiniog has been discussed in the main CJC board. Recommendation 5: The Wellbeing of Future Generations Act – there is a corporate plan in place for the CJC as a whole. The National Report shows that these sorts of issues were common and typical across all of the CJCs. · Letter with Commentary on MWCJC progress Audit Wales provided a letter specifically on the Mid Wales CJC, please see page 45 – 51 of the pack. Comments RE queried whether there was an expectation that all CJCs must respond back to the Audit Wales recommendations. How could they demonstrate that they have done what they recommended. EE confirmed that the CJC board have already responded to the Audit Wales recommendations – they provided a robust challenge to Audit Wales initial report which had gone beyond what the legislation required of LAs. For example, one of their recommendations stated every LA across Wales should look at having as many services as possible through their CJC model, but the legislation does not require this or ask for it. In the long-term enforcing this type of activity will be counterproductive, as people will naturally pull away from this enforced approach. Whereas the partnership between Ceredigion, Powys and Bannau Brycheiniog has grown/evolved very productively so far. This partnership has other service areas in it, like the strong and robust education agenda between Ceredigion and Powys – this does not fall within the remit of the CJC, but Audit Wales recommended this should be dropped in it as well. The CJC board agreed to challenge Audit Wales recommendations and as a result they have watered them down quite significantly. The CJC structure was presented with good intentions to try and fast track democratic decision-making processes, but with a partnership of two there is the danger that they could undermine democracy in a way – because they still need local scrutiny when they have only two LAs. They need to ensure the decision made are aligned with the priority areas of both individual LAs. The board within Ceredigion has two leaders and when the strategic development planning is discussed a representative from Bannau Brycheiniog will join the table – so ultimately, they have only two decision makers around the table. Therefore, it critical that they ensure they look after local democracy as well, which is why they have ensured their response back to Audit Wales recommendations was robust (e.g., support the agenda of collaboration and working in partnership, support the rationale about economies of scale and working in close proximity with one another). This model needs suit and be pragmatic for a partnership of two. AD queried whether there was any intention for an internal audit to take place on the CJC. DH stated that the internal audit responsibility rests with Powys County Council, who have undertaken the mini annual governance for the annual return. The transactional activity is limited now, so the internal auditor’s role is limited. But if the CJC grows more significantly, then the internal auditor’s role will grow accordingly. NOTE: Report received by CJC members.
EE the Chief Executive Officer provided a verbal overview of the progress update report, which outlines the establishment and operation of the Mid Wales CJC and its Sub Committees. There are three specific areas, which are incorporated into the Mid Wales CJC: - 1. Strategic Development Planning (SDP) 2. Regional Transport Planning (RTP) 3. Economic Wellbeing (EW) Membership The Chair and CEO of the CJC changes annually between the two leaders. This year Cllr. James Gibson-Watts is the Chair, with EE taking on the role of the Chief Executive Officer to support James – so there is one person from each LA. At the next annual general meeting, the CJC Chair will swap to the leader of Ceredigion and Emma Palmer will take over the role of the Chief Executive Officer. This has been agreed in advance. The pack mentions the jobs within the CJC and their roles, however it does not list the various commissioners funded across Wales. The language commissioners have requested that Powys and Ceredigion get to their level of standard. However, it is impossible to have standards which are relevant for both LAs – as the LAs standards are some of the largest in Wales, Welsh is a first language for many people and in Powys the standards might be lower as they are on the English border. If both LAs have the same sets of standards, it will cause a lot of financial issues for Powys to get to the same standard as Ceredigion. However, if they give the documents trans lingually, Welsh speakers can speak Welsh and they have translation, then this should satisfy the commissioners. Sub Committees There must be a democratic standard in the CJC subgroups, as it would not be fair if only the two leaders and one person from Bannau Brycheiniog had all the powers to decide on everything – without there being input from the democratic side in the subgroups. The subgroups were created so the recommendations can appraise what is discussed politically. EE compared Mid Wales CJC approach to Cardiff’s CJC – how the MWCJC jobs/roles are added to officers existing roles (e.g., as CEO EE does not get any extra remuneration for other jobs added to his role). If in the future they have to appoint/pay staff in the region, either Ceredigion or Powys would be responsible for this person – as the employee would work on behalf of the two LAs. Delivery Progress The funds for the Regional Transport Planning strategy have started to come in. They have challenged the Minister many times regarding the process that they are following currently for the strategy because if they need to create a strategy and planning strategy, then the main strategy across the region should be created first. Government have requested that the transport strategy needs to be developed before they create the SDP. However, this puts the cart before the horse – they should be concentrating on the SDP itself, before planning things under it. Powys in particular are facing a disadvantage here, as they are expected to do a Local Development Plan (LDP) and another SDP – in order to complete these jobs, the financial cost to Powys is huge. The role of the CJC is to write the SDP and then concentrate on the travel and what comes from growing the economy. However, they are unable to follow this sequence, as they must follow the needs of the government. Budget As mentioned previously they challenged Audit Wales regarding their fees, as currently only a small amount of work has been done. If in the future the grant only allows the money to go through the CJC this will change the dynamic of the MWCJC. However, now Ceredigion are the ‘host authority’. This means the money which comes in for MWCJC goes into Ceredigion’s bank account. They are not giving the title of ‘lead authority’ to anyone, they will use the term ‘host authority’ instead. Mid Wales CJC Corporate Plan (Appendix 1) A Corporate Plan has been prepared – it a combined plan for Powys and Ceredigion. It contains elements which are relevant for Bannau Brycheiniog (e.g., Planning). The board will have to draft a report – so when they meet the legal requirements, these reports will be combined. The plan guarantees that they are doing all the work that is needed. They must consider writing about risk, for example the direction they all are going to have to go in to create benefit for the people who live in Mid Wales. Comments EE* queried whether the template for the risk register (developed by Ceredigion/Powys) will be available at the next meeting of this group. EE confirmed that the risk register will be available, though the biggest risk for this partnership is developing the strategic documents out of sequence. EE* queried whether government have given a rationale for the sequence of documents required. EE stated that there is a legal requirement. Powys has a deadline for their LDP and in order to be legally complaint they must review their LDP by this deadline. Therefore, the LDP takes precedent over the SDP. Moving forward if this partnership is going to flourish and work as it as it is intended to, they need to sequence things correctly. Otherwise, the strategies will be scrutinised for not linking up correctly. CKW mentioned that on the public consultation they are already a year late and part of this is due to the few planning officers they have, are busy on the SDP. EE stated that work has not started yet, they are currently working on the skeleton of how they are going to structure the SDP. As Bannau Brycheiniog, Powys and Ceredigion need to work in partnership to create this high-level plan and the amount of work involved in the SDP is compatible with the requirements in creating a LDP at the same time. Therefore, it unfair on Powys as they are expected to do both at the same time – it is a massive ask. It is the same officers which must do both tasks, but to try and support one another Ceredigion has been given the lead responsibility for this work to one of its planning officers – which will hopefully take some pressure off Powys colleagues. NOTE: Report received by CJC members.
This subcommittee does not currently have a forward work programme. However, as mentioned in the Terms of Reference it is up to this group to determine their work programme. It was agreed that NW (as the programme lead for the joint committee) would draft the forward work programme. NW will also draft the template/model for the CJC’s Risk Register before the next meeting. It was suggested that the risk register is brought to every meeting, so the group can review latest risk status. ACTION: NW will draft the forward work plan and risk register for the CJC, prior to the next meeting. AD queried whether there any briefing or information sessions that this group need to have to take a wider context, rather than dealing with the agenda as presented. EE suggested that now they hold off on this, because the construction of the CJC is in its infancy. They are still grappling with the requirement according to legislation, compliance with various acts and different sets of legislations. Plus, they are getting communication from civil servants about certain service areas, and they are referring to the CJC when these service areas do not sit under the CJCs legislation. EE attends national meetings with senior civil servants from Cardiff to try and trash all of this detail out. The biggest complexities they have are associated with the Commissioners whose requirements are just growing. The Commissioners state that under their legislation they are responsible for holding legally constituted bodies to account for compliance, so unless WG tell them differently, that is what they intend to do. Therefore, they are trying to demonstrate to the Commissioners that they are holding them accountable for things, which are currently just superficial. They still have a lot of background work to do around the final principles of how the CJC is delivered, so until they have 100% sorted out of the governance for the MWCJC they should hold off on this. As soon as they have this clarity, then they will think of the additional requirement of the CJC. CS queried whether there were any Audit Wales reports, which are critical for this group to progress – to avoid getting a negative report from Audit Wales. EE confirmed that they have had one on one meetings with Audit Wales, explaining the position of the MWCJC and where in the journey they are in the constitution, governance and delivery of service areas. They have subsequently revised down their fees quite dramatically from where they were initially. The CJC’s performance will be progressed by getting the governance in right, so they are now in the position Audit Wales expect the MWCJC to be. EE* mentioned it would be useful if at the next meeting they could have a list of plans expected of the MWCJC (e.g., Corporate Plan, Powys LDP, SDP, Biodiversity Plan etc.), along with position of existing partnerships (e.g., TraCC, PSB) to see if there is going to be crossover/duplication etc. EE stated that there are two PSBs in Powys and Ceredigion, Bannau Brycheiniog sit on the Powys PSB but not the Ceredigion PSB. Powys has their own Health Board, Ceredigion are part of Hywel Dda Health Board. Therefore, it never going to be possible to merge PSB to work on a similar footprint. Unfortunately, in Mid Wales they are a bit stretched, for example Bannau Brycheiniog would link into at least three different CJC structures as it overlaps into them. The footprint makes life exceedingly difficult to know what exactly the MWCJC needs to encompass – therefore they trying to keep things as simple as possible to not over complicate things and keep it contained to the MWCJCs legal requirements, the three pillars (regional transport, economic growth and strategic development plan). If they see opportunities going forward over a period, let us give ourselves that ability to grow and evolve in a controlled way, rather than jumping into something which could lead to the MWCJC being scrutinized. It been beneficial for WG, Audit Wales and the various Commissioners, to all agree that the MWCJC needs to walk before they can run. Though as they progress, they need to be careful, as the MWCJC will not be able to meet everyone’s aspirations or expectations.
None
Board agreed to hold the next meeting in September/October, being mindful of purdah. ACTION: The Host Authority (Ceredigion) will set the date of this meeting. 11. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS 1. NW will draft the forward work plan and risk register for the CJC, prior to the next meeting. 2. The Host Authority (Ceredigion) will set the date of this meeting.
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.