Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
RESOLVED: The Governance and Audit Committee: · Approve the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25; · Recommend to Council that the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25 be noted and endorsed.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
The Chairperson welcomed all to the meeting.
There were none.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on the 20th May 2025, were approved as a true and accurate account. Members noted that whilst minutes are not intended to be a verbatim record, it would be helpful that future minutes included context around the discussions taking place.
Members raised the item under section 7 of the previous meeting held on 20th May 2025 in relation to Audit Wales highlighting that they would invite an Officer to Governance and Audit Committee in the future to talk about Cyber Security. It was proposed that this be added to The Forward Work Programme.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Members received an overview of the circulated report by a representative of Audit Wales. Officers provided assurances to the committee that Audit Wales had undertaken a piece of work in 2023 looking at how Local Authorities set their wellbeing objectives taking into consideration the Sustainable Development principle. The Council had received a positive report in relation to this as Audit Wales concluded “the council had applied the Sustainable Development principle and carried out extensive engagement when setting its wellbeing objectives”. There was a recommendation within the report in terms of the need for the council to further develop its monitoring arrangements. Officers confirmed this had been progressed with the development of a revised Corporate Performance Management Framework which clearly sets out how the delivery of the well-being objectives will be monitored. RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Members received an overview of the Draft Statement of Accounts 2024/25. Members noted that on page 78 of the report, there was incorrect date listed for the date of when published audit statement of accounts should be completed. Members queried the accounts procedure. Officers clarified that they will return to the Governance and Audit Committee around September or October alongside a report from Audit Wales. Subject to Committee approval they will be signed off by the Chair and Director of Finance. The chair highlighted that the meeting should be quorate to ensure that the statement is signed off. Members queried why there was such a large revaluation gain listed in the report in relation to revaluation of assets. Officers highlighted that assets are valued over a 5 year period and on a replacement basis. Over the last 5 years there has been a significant increase in the costs surrounding replacement of schools due to factors such as increased construction costs. Members also noted that the value of debtors has been increasing year on year and queried whether there should be concern with this. Officers responded that this was around the timing of cash receipts particularly those that had not paid until after 31st March. Members queried why under Officer renumeration, some Officers are named, while others are only titled. Officers clarified that this was a code of requirement that once a renumeration package is in excess of £150,000 that Officers be named. Members also queried that the salary fee for the Director of Strategy and Corporate Services increases year on year. Officers confirmed that this was due to the fact that the post was newly created and therefor only had 9 months of costs in 1 year, and 12 months of costs in the next. Members noted that the statement currently highlights that under the section related to the impact of the current financial climate on the Council, TATA is particularly highlighted. It was suggested that more narrative to explain the context as to how this is having an impact is included. Regarding notes surrounding the cash flow statement Members requested more context on this. Officers advised they would circulate this information to members after the meeting. Members also requested clarity as to why the number of higher paid Officers has increased from 204 to 249. Officers clarified that this was due to teachers moving within the bands that breach this threshold and as such the numbers have increased and offered to include more narrative around this for the final version. In relation to a new contract being signed with Celtic Leisure, Members asked whether this was this part of a competitive procurement, or a direct award decision taken by the authority. Officers clarified that this decision was taken following a report that was taken to Cabinet on 2nd October, which gave 3 options, of which it was decided to extend the contract for 5 years. This is the last possible extension to the contract, within the next 5 years a procurement process around that arrangement will be undertaken. The Chair queried where Council Tax debtors’ liabilities sit within the Statement of Accounts. It was clarified that these are included on page 46 of the statement. RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Officers provided an overview to the circulated report. Members noted that the gap between the inherent and residual risk scores were close and also some target scores were missing and queried what the Authority is doing to mitigate this. This comment was noted and will be addressed. Members questioned why there were a number of strategic risks where no target risk is completed. It was clarified that target score is an action that is relatively new to the Authority. Directorates are being asked to look at what further mitigating actions need to be put in place to reduce the risk, which is an ongoing piece of work. Officers confirmed that if a risk score is identified the intention is to implement mitigating actions to try and meet this. Members queried whether there will be training available on the matter. It was confirmed that specific Officer training has been identified and that it is likely that training will need to be provided in house in order to meet the needs of the Authority. Members also noted that in terms of one risk there are multiple owners listed in relation to the risk and queried if this was the correct approach. Officers responded that this was due to a transitional period between Chief Executive Officers and because the risk spans multiple directorates, however this will be reviewed going forward with a drive towards a single owner. It was also clarified that there is ongoing discussion as to whether the risk should sit with another as a council risk as it had wider implications for the community, this conversation is ongoing within the Strategic Leadership team. Members noted an inaccuracy for correction in relation to the graph listed on page 175 for SR26. Members also noted that SR08 comments suggests that an agreement has not yet been reached and will be revisited the 9th of April or at the next meeting and queried whether there was an update with this. Officers confirmed that the information supplied in the report is a snapshot in time due to the nature of the report needing to progress through the Cabinet process. It was suggested by members that an explanation of this should be included in the introduction. Members noted on page 176 in the detail where the strategic risk is summarised, SR09 in terms of personally identifiable information, GDPR and risk exposure, there is a gross inherent risk score of 12 which in the members opinions is quite low given the amount of risk being carried if we were breached. Further SR12 in relation to cyber security posture is only scored at 15 which is also in the members opinion low. The residual risk score of this is also listed at 5 which the members highlighted that they are not aware of any organisation that has their score aligned at this level. Members noted that it is important that the Authority holds itself true in respect of the scores and that it is possible that the inherent risk and residual risk scores are in too close proximity. Members noted that risk scores probably should be higher taking into account what the risk exposure is should the Authority not have a solid control environment. Members queried why SR25 risk scores had increased so significantly. Officers confirmed that this was due to the ongoing process of resetting scores and that it was likely that the original score was set too low, but also that cost of delivering climate change initiatives is impacting the score. Members observed that risk management has moved in a positive direction over the last 12 months. They also noted that whilst the dashboard is helpful, the column that discusses residual score and movement since November 2024 has a number of risks that have not moved in that time. The members queried whether mitigating actions were working or whether it was a case that they are working but the risk is just increasing with it. Officers responded that this is a question that they are asking of directorates and there is more work to be done on this matter. The Chair reminded Officers that the committee has in the past offered to act as a critical friend and that the committee is still happy to fulfil that role. Members also noted some formatting errors in relation to tables cutting off some text and queried the difference between the terms on-going and in-progress. Officers clarified that on-going relates to those actions that will continually be in place and never close, where as in-progress refers to those that have an end date. It was suggested that there may need to be more narrative surrounding this. RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: The Governance and Audit Committee: · Approve the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25; · Recommend to Council that the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25 be noted and endorsed.
The Chair provided an overview to the circulated report. RESOLVED: The Governance and Audit Committee: · Approve the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25; · Recommend to Council that the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25 be noted and endorsed.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Members received an overview of the circulated report. Member feedback on the report was positive. With comment focus on future improvement opportunities. Members commented that it would be helpful to include context around the direction of travel comparison year on year, and queried how strong a reasonable assurance it was The Audit Manager thanked Committee for their feedback and provided wider context to the reasonable assurance opinion, in line with the report content. The Audit Manager has been in post since September 2024 and has ensured that audit & assurance findings were considered from the full 2024/25 audit year. Whilst acknowledging that assurance can never be absolute. The Audit Manager will ensure that future Annual Reports include clear direction of travel, with confirmation on how that links to the individual activity outcomes per year. Enquiries were made by members as to whether future reports could include thematic findings from the work. The Audit Manager confirmed that future Annual Reports will be made under the new Global Internal Audit Standards in the UK Public Sector and include more detail on thematic findings. In relation to section 2 of the report members raised that it talks about reasonable level of assurance, and it would be helpful to know what assurance level was achieved last year. It was also commented that a sentence to state that “the Authority is taking the appropriate actions as a result of the work that has been conducted” would be useful. The Audit Manager confirmed that the 2024/25 opinion was in line with prior year, with both being reasonable assurance. Member feedback on opinion wording was noted and agreed as in line with the main Annual Report content. The Audit Manager confirmed that the opinion wording within the draft Annual Governance Statement 2024/25 would reflect this position. RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Members received an overview of the circulated report. Members highlighted some inconsistencies in committee names within the document. Officers confirmed that this is due to some committee’s having draft names that have since altered and this will be rectified accordingly. RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Members received an overview of the circulated report by a representative of Audit Wales. Officers noted to the committee that the recommendation included in the report has been taken on board and steps are being taken to improve. RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
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.