Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That Mr John Evans be elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
RESOLVED That the Internal Audit Charter 2023-24 be approved.
RESOLVED (a) That a scorecard for overdue actions by Departments be created and presented to the Committee for monitoring purposes. • Dr Norma Barry supported the implementation of a scorecard but suggested that the Chief Executive highlight to Directors and Heads of Service the importance of completing Audit actions.The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that the Chief Executive was supportive of the Audit team and their work. He highlighted that certain timescales were perhaps optimistic rather than realistic and mentioned that Officers were trying to prioritise which actions they would consider critical, in order to deliver those first. He agreed that a scorecard implementation would strengthen the process and give Members a greater oversight of actions outstanding and the impacts if they were not completed. Dr Barry suggested that Officers make the Audit team aware if they were unable to meet specific deadlines. • Martin Veale agreed with Dr Barry and stated that he would not expect to see assurance ratings to be published alongside draft reports, as the final position of the report could change. He then sought clarification in regards to the assurance ratings scheme and whether the terms had been changed. In response to draft reports, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that the findings had been delivered to Management and recommendations had been responded to, but explained that the final sign-off had simply not been received. In regards to the assurance ratings scheme, he stated that the process was reviewed annually for improvement and explained that there were a number of audits previously that he felt on reflection were better than moderate, but were not at the level of a substantial rating. He highlighted that ‘reasonable’ had been implemented to ensure that Auditors had a considered approach based on their investigations, evidence, the risks to services and what processes were in place. He also mentioned an update regarding the recommendation grading, to more accurately distinguish the differences in risks. Mr Veale wished for an explanation on these terms to be added to the Rolling Internal Audit Plan attached as Appendix A to the report. He also wished to clarify whether the threshold for Limited Assurance reports remained the same. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager confirmed that to be the case and agreed to include an explanation regarding the updated grading terms. It was then Moved by Martin Veale that the report be noted; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (b) That the report be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That the challenges faced by the Authority in the recruitment and retention of staff be referred to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration. • In regards to the Decarbonisation of the Council Housing Stock, Councillor Alderman sought clarification as to whether this matter could also be referred to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Head of Democratic Services stated that this matter would go to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and would focus only on the Decarbonisation of the Council Housing Stock, rather than the wider issues. • Councillor Stoddart believed that Councillor Alderman referred to the wider implications across the Authority, in addition to the housing stock. The Chair summarised and suggested that the widest impact and financial impact on the Organisation in regards to the decarbonisation agenda be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee. • Councillor Alderman stated that he was concerned about the potential Officer time involved with a wider review of the issue and suggested that it would be more beneficial to undertake a review of the housing stock first. The Chair and Councillor Stoddart agreed. Councillor Steve Alderman then Moved a Recommendation to the effect that the financial challenges in meeting the requirements of the Council Housing Stock Decarbonisation be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration as a priority; and that the Committee be asked to look at the wider impact of decarbonisation agenda on the Authority thereafter. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michael James, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham; Dr Norma Barry, Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (b) That the financial challenges in meeting the requirements of the Council Housing Stock Decarbonisation be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration as a priority; and that the Committee be asked to look at the wider impact of decarbonisation agenda on the Authority thereafter. It was Moved by Councillor Steve Alderman that the report be noted; Seconded by Martin Veale. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted. [HE1]Remind Matt to add to his FWP?
RESOLVED That the Head of Internal Audit Opinion and Report for 2022-23 be noted.
RESOLVED That the draft Annual Governance Statement for 2022-23 be endorsed prior to it being reported to Council for approval.
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
RESOLVED That the proposed addendum, as set out in the report, be approved for incorporation into the Contract Procedure Rules.
RESOLVED (a) That the dates of the forthcoming meetings of the Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year be noted. (b) That the Forward Work Programme for 2023-24 be approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Mr John Evans be elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The Head of Democratic Services sought nominations for the role of Chair. Councillor Mike Stoddart Moved that John Evans be nominated for the role of Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Mr John Evans be elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The Chair thanked Members for their vote of confidence in him and thanked Officers for the help and support over the last year. He then sought nominations for the role of Vice-Chair. Councillor Mike Stoddart Moved that Councillor Jacob Williams be nominated for the role of Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Jacob Williams be elected as Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
There were no declarations of interest.
Moved by John Evans; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 April 2023 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager presented the follow-up actions report for the consideration of the Committee. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager highlighted that at the end of the previous meeting, there were seven actions that were required to be followed up and stated that six of those actions had been completed to the best ability of Officers. He mentioned that the draft Audit Plan from Audit Wales had only recently been received, which outlined the risks regarding the ISA 315. He stated that due to the timescales involved, this Plan would go to the next meeting of the Committee. The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: · Martin Veale wished to amend an error in the second action on page 38 of the Agenda, to change the mention of Contract Managers to Corporate Managers. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager confirmed that he would make the amendment. Mr Veale then highlighted his disappointment that representatives from Audit Wales were not present at the meeting and outlined the questions he wished to ask. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that he would take his comments to Audit Wales and mentioned that feedback from all Members could be taken to Audit Wales outside of the meeting. · Councillor Mike Stoddart sought clarification in regards to a question he asked at the last meeting regarding gas boilers being replaced by heat pumps, and stated that the information had not been provided outside of that meeting. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager confirmed that he would contact the relevant Officer for that information and bring it back to the next meeting. · The Chair wished to amend the sixth action on page 39 of the Agenda to amber, as the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan was not attached to the Agenda, as outlined in the action point. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that the report regarding the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan was attached as Item 12, which the Head of Law and Governance would present and outline the detail around the work of Audit Wales, which would ultimately require the Improvement Plan to be revised. Moved by Martin Veale; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Internal Audit Charter 2023-24 be approved.
[Councillor Guy Woodham declared a personal interest by virtue of representing the Authority on the Joint Committee of Partneriaeth.] The Committee considered a report by the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager on the Internal Audit Charter for 2023-24. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager presented the report highlighting a number of key areas which included strengthening the Charter in terms of the external work that had been undertaken, the impact, the communication protocol and the recommendation tracking. The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: • Martin Veale sought clarification in regards to the amount of time spent on providing external services, outlined on page 65 point 6.5 of the Agenda, compared to the amount of time spent on Pembrokeshire’s Audit function. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager confirmed that 30 days were allocated to Partneriaeth and Swansea Bay City Deal related work. He then explained that he worked with the Officers of the external bodies to ensure that work was concluded within a timely manner and did not have an overall impact on the work undertaken for the Council. • Dr Norma Barry highlighted that on page 65 point 6.5 of the Agenda, it should read objectivity as opposed to objectively. She also made a point regarding Appendix A and references to gender and wished for such references to be replaced with ‘they’ in the future. She then suggested that (a) on page 51 of the Agenda under ‘Audit Reporting’ should read ‘relevant Director’. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager explained that ‘Director’ was included as some work was cross-cutting with various Directors. Moved by Dr Norma Barry; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michael James, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham; Dr Norma Barry, Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Internal Audit Charter 2023-24 be approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That a scorecard for overdue actions by Departments be created and presented to the Committee for monitoring purposes. • Dr Norma Barry supported the implementation of a scorecard but suggested that the Chief Executive highlight to Directors and Heads of Service the importance of completing Audit actions.The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that the Chief Executive was supportive of the Audit team and their work. He highlighted that certain timescales were perhaps optimistic rather than realistic and mentioned that Officers were trying to prioritise which actions they would consider critical, in order to deliver those first. He agreed that a scorecard implementation would strengthen the process and give Members a greater oversight of actions outstanding and the impacts if they were not completed. Dr Barry suggested that Officers make the Audit team aware if they were unable to meet specific deadlines. • Martin Veale agreed with Dr Barry and stated that he would not expect to see assurance ratings to be published alongside draft reports, as the final position of the report could change. He then sought clarification in regards to the assurance ratings scheme and whether the terms had been changed. In response to draft reports, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that the findings had been delivered to Management and recommendations had been responded to, but explained that the final sign-off had simply not been received. In regards to the assurance ratings scheme, he stated that the process was reviewed annually for improvement and explained that there were a number of audits previously that he felt on reflection were better than moderate, but were not at the level of a substantial rating. He highlighted that ‘reasonable’ had been implemented to ensure that Auditors had a considered approach based on their investigations, evidence, the risks to services and what processes were in place. He also mentioned an update regarding the recommendation grading, to more accurately distinguish the differences in risks. Mr Veale wished for an explanation on these terms to be added to the Rolling Internal Audit Plan attached as Appendix A to the report. He also wished to clarify whether the threshold for Limited Assurance reports remained the same. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager confirmed that to be the case and agreed to include an explanation regarding the updated grading terms. It was then Moved by Martin Veale that the report be noted; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (b) That the report be noted.
The Committee considered a report by the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager on the Internal Audit and Counter Fraud Quarter 1 Update for 2023-24. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager presented the report highlighting a number of key areas which included progress regarding the Internal Audit Plan for 2023-34, the implementation of a new internal audit software system, when the Audit would be undertaken and the flexibility of the Plan in regards to reprioritising based on risk and emerging issues. He stated that at the end of May 2023, there were 45 actions overdue, which represented around a quarter of all current recommendations and highlighted that if those actions were not completed within the relevant timescale, the Committee would be made aware. The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: • The Chair highlighted that if a recommendation had a timeline then it should not be overdue, and stated that a quarter of all recommendations outstanding was unacceptable. • The Chair then proposed that a scorecard be produced for each department, to be brought to the Committee to have a view of overdue actions. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that following implementation of the new system, it would be fairly simple to facilitate a scorecard to be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee. The Chair then Moved a Motion to the effect that a scorecard for overdue actions by Departments be created and presented to the Committee for monitoring purposes; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That a scorecard for overdue actions by Departments be created and presented to the Committee for monitoring purposes. • Dr Norma Barry supported the implementation of a scorecard but suggested that the Chief Executive highlight to Directors and Heads of Service the importance of completing Audit actions.The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that the Chief Executive was supportive of the Audit team and their work. He highlighted that certain timescales were perhaps optimistic rather than realistic and mentioned that Officers were trying to prioritise which actions they would consider critical, in order to deliver those first. He agreed that a scorecard implementation would strengthen the process and give Members a greater oversight of actions outstanding and the impacts if they were not completed. Dr Barry suggested that Officers make the Audit team aware if they were unable to meet specific deadlines. • Martin Veale agreed with Dr Barry and stated that he would not expect to see assurance ratings to be published alongside draft reports, as the final position of the report could change. He then sought clarification in regards to the assurance ratings scheme and whether the terms had been changed. In response to draft reports, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that the findings had been delivered to Management and recommendations had been responded to, but explained that the final sign-off had simply not been received. In regards to the assurance ratings scheme, he stated that the process was reviewed annually for improvement and explained that there were a number of audits previously that he felt on reflection were better than moderate, but were not at the level of a substantial rating. He highlighted that ‘reasonable’ had been implemented to ensure that Auditors had a considered approach based on their investigations, evidence, the risks to services and what processes were in place. He also mentioned an update regarding the recommendation grading, to more accurately distinguish the differences in risks. Mr Veale wished for an explanation on these terms to be added to the Rolling Internal Audit Plan attached as Appendix A to the report. He also wished to clarify whether the threshold for Limited Assurance reports remained the same. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager confirmed that to be the case and agreed to include an explanation regarding the updated grading terms. It was then Moved by Martin Veale that the report be noted; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (b) That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the challenges faced by the Authority in the recruitment and retention of staff be referred to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration. • In regards to the Decarbonisation of the Council Housing Stock, Councillor Alderman sought clarification as to whether this matter could also be referred to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Head of Democratic Services stated that this matter would go to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and would focus only on the Decarbonisation of the Council Housing Stock, rather than the wider issues. • Councillor Stoddart believed that Councillor Alderman referred to the wider implications across the Authority, in addition to the housing stock. The Chair summarised and suggested that the widest impact and financial impact on the Organisation in regards to the decarbonisation agenda be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee. • Councillor Alderman stated that he was concerned about the potential Officer time involved with a wider review of the issue and suggested that it would be more beneficial to undertake a review of the housing stock first. The Chair and Councillor Stoddart agreed. Councillor Steve Alderman then Moved a Recommendation to the effect that the financial challenges in meeting the requirements of the Council Housing Stock Decarbonisation be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration as a priority; and that the Committee be asked to look at the wider impact of decarbonisation agenda on the Authority thereafter. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michael James, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham; Dr Norma Barry, Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (b) That the financial challenges in meeting the requirements of the Council Housing Stock Decarbonisation be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration as a priority; and that the Committee be asked to look at the wider impact of decarbonisation agenda on the Authority thereafter. It was Moved by Councillor Steve Alderman that the report be noted; Seconded by Martin Veale. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted. [HE1]Remind Matt to add to his FWP?
The Committee considered a report by the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager on the Business Risk Management Update Quarter 2 for 2023-24. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager presented the report highlighting a number of key areas which included recruitment for a new Strategic Risk Manager, upskilling Staff within the Internal Audit Service to provide resilience, the quarterly meeting of the Corporate Risk Management Group and the consideration of purchasing a bespoke risk management software. He referred to increasing the residual risk of the Council Housing Stock Decarbonisation Programme, specifically in regards to financial challenges that the Council could face, therefore the matter had been increased to be the Council’s top risk in terms of achievement. He also highlighted that the Shrinking Local Economy risk had been de-escalated, following the announcement of the Freeport Bid. The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: • Dr Norma Barry sought clarification in regards to the timeline of the creation of a Nutrient Management Plan. She also wished for more information in relation to the Migrant’s Toolkit and Induction Packs and an explanation regarding Pembrokeshire taking in Migrants. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that he would take the question regarding Migrants to the relevant Officer for more information and feedback outside of the meeting. He then stated that the creation of a Nutrient Management Plan had been discussed with the Head of Planning, but he was informed that further guidance was required from Welsh Government before the Plan could be started and stated that he would have a better understanding at the next meeting of the Committee. • Councillor Mike Stoddart welcomed the escalation of the Council Housing Stock Decarbonisation Programme. He suggested that the Corporate Risk Management Group also review the risks of the cost of electric vehicles, the supply of affordable housing, as well as supplier and market failure. He believed that the decarbonisation of the Council Housing stock was a significant financial commitment. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that he had noted those points and would take them to the next meeting of the Corporate Risk Management Group for their consideration and would bring an update back to the Committee in due course.[HE1] • The Chair referred to the Financial Resilience risks on page 90 of the Agenda and highlighted that the reasons for the incomplete actions related to the Council being unable to recruit staff, which resulted in limited capacity. He suggested that the matter of recruitment and retention needed to be escalated in order to resolve the issue, as it was impacting critical work. • Councillor Steve Alderman agreed with the Chair and suggested that the issue needed to be analysed in regards to how the Council was helping the situation within the County, in order to upskill people to move into specific job roles. • The Chair stated that this was an important element of running the Organisation and believed it needed to have the authority of the Chief Executive to implement a strategic plan to solve these problems. He then sought clarification as to whether the matter of recruitment and retention could be referred to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In response, the Head of Democratic Services confirmed that to be the case and stated that this particular matter would fall within the remit of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee. • Dr Barry agreed with the Chair and highlighted that it was a wider issue. She then suggested that it would be beneficial to review the rate of unemployment in regards to age, amount of benefits received and why people were unemployed. The Chair then Moved a Motion to the effect that the challenges faced by the Authority in the recruitment and retention of staff be referred to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration. The Recommendation was Seconded by Dr Norma Barry. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michael James, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham; Dr Norma Barry, Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the challenges faced by the Authority in the recruitment and retention of staff be referred to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration. • In regards to the Decarbonisation of the Council Housing Stock, Councillor Alderman sought clarification as to whether this matter could also be referred to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Head of Democratic Services stated that this matter would go to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and would focus only on the Decarbonisation of the Council Housing Stock, rather than the wider issues. • Councillor Stoddart believed that Councillor Alderman referred to the wider implications across the Authority, in addition to the housing stock. The Chair summarised and suggested that the widest impact and financial impact on the Organisation in regards to the decarbonisation agenda be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee. • Councillor Alderman stated that he was concerned about the potential Officer time involved with a wider review of the issue and suggested that it would be more beneficial to undertake a review of the housing stock first. The Chair and Councillor Stoddart agreed. Councillor Steve Alderman then Moved a Recommendation to the effect that the financial challenges in meeting the requirements of the Council Housing Stock Decarbonisation be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration as a priority; and that the Committee be asked to look at the wider impact of decarbonisation agenda on the Authority thereafter. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michael James, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham; Dr Norma Barry, Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (b) That the financial challenges in meeting the requirements of the Council Housing Stock Decarbonisation be referred to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration as a priority; and that the Committee be asked to look at the wider impact of decarbonisation agenda on the Authority thereafter. It was Moved by Councillor Steve Alderman that the report be noted; Seconded by Martin Veale. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted. [HE1]Remind Matt to add to his FWP?
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Head of Internal Audit Opinion and Report for 2022-23 be noted.
The Committee considered a report by the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager on the Annual Head of Internal Audit Report for 2022-23. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager presented the report highlighting a number of key areas which included the Head of Internal Audit opinion, a summary of the work that supported the opinion, a statement on conformation with the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS), and the results of the Quality Assurance and Improvement Programme (QAIP). The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: • Dr Norma Barry commented that the report was a very good, comprehensive one and she sought clarification as to whether the performance indicators were agreed on an all-Wales basis and whether they could be amended. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager confirmed that the indicators were agreed on an all-Wales basis but stated that the Committee had to be happy with the performance of the Audit team. He highlighted that the biggest aspect to measure was the value added, which was only received through direct feedback from Directors. • Martin Veale wished for more context to be added to paragraphs 2.8 and 4.4 of the Internal Audit Annual report, including the reasons as to why that was a good assessment result. He then sought clarification as to why paragraph 6.4 of the report contained a reference to Partneriaeth Regional Consortia School Improvement Grant (External Assurance). In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that he would include a more detailed explanation around paragraphs 2.8 and 4.4 of the Internal Audit Annual report. In regards to Partneriaeth, he stated that it was included as it was one of Pembrokeshire’s Strategic Partners and formed part of the work undertaken by the Council, but stated that he would review this ahead of next year’s report. • Mr Veale then sought clarification regarding the Swansea Bay City Deal and whether the Audit reports for that body were reported to the Governors and Committees of the local Councils. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that such reports were submitted to the Joint Committees of the respective bodies. Mr Veale then wished to know how other Governance and Audit Committees were made aware of Limited Assurance reports. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager explained that it was the responsibility of respective Heads of Internal Audit to consider but highlighted that such reports were in the public domain. Moved by Dr Norma Barry; Seconded by Martin Veale. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Head of Internal Audit Opinion and Report for 2022-23 be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the draft Annual Governance Statement for 2022-23 be endorsed prior to it being reported to Council for approval.
The Committee considered a report by the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager on the Annual Governance Statement for 2022-23. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager presented the report highlighting a number of key areas which included the effectiveness of the system of internal control, Senior Leadership Team input, the actions still to be delivered, significant issues and priorities for improvement. The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: • Dr Norma Barry highlighted that there was no reference made to Strategic Partnerships in relation to the economy on page 161 of the Agenda. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager explained that the Strategic Partnerships outlined in the report were the longstanding partnerships agreed by Cabinet, but would most likely be reviewed in the future to include such projects as the Celtic Freeport. In response to a reference of the Regional Economic Partnership, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager explained that that body related to the South-West Wales Corporate Joint Committee. Dr Barry then suggested the inclusion of how actions contributed to the goals of the Council. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that this aspect would be formed as part of the Council’s Self-Assessment Programme, due to be presented at the next meeting of the Committee. Moved by Dr Norma Barry; Seconded by Councillor Aled Thomas. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the draft Annual Governance Statement for 2022-23 be endorsed prior to it being reported to Council for approval.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive and the Head of Law and Governance on the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan for 2022-24. The Head of Law and Governance presented the report and stated that progress was being made in regards to all actions and that the Constitution was ready for a final review, which would then be reviewed by the Constitutional Working Group in September, prior to adoption by full Council. She highlighted that a revised draft of the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan was being worked on, in line with the informal feedback received from Audit Wales. She mentioned that the final copy of the Audit Wales follow-up report had been received and stated that the report recommended that the Council focused on how to demonstrate that the intended impacts of the Council’s actions were being achieved and how that would result in sustained improvement, as well as considering the prioritisation of the actions. She highlighted that a revised plan would be brought back to the Committee in September. The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: • Martin Veale sought clarification in regards to paragraph four of the report, which referred toAudit Wales undertaking follow-up work on the progress being made by the Council against the recommendations in the Public Interest Report. In response, the Head of Law and Governance explained that the follow-up report from Audit Wales was a fair assessment and recognised that the actions of the Council were not short term and asked the Council to focus on demonstrating the efficacy of the actions outlined in the Improvement Plan. • The Chair stated his disappointment in not receiving an update regarding outcomes and a measure of how successful certain actions had been. Moved by Councillor Steve Alderman; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the proposed addendum, as set out in the report, be approved for incorporation into the Contract Procedure Rules.
The Committee considered a report by the Interim Director of Resources on the Contract Procedure Rules and the timescale for revision. The Interim Director of Resources / Head of Financial Services presented the report highlighting a number of key areas which included the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan in relation to Contract Procedure Rules, the need to update them, new Welsh Government Procurement Legislation and an addendum to Contract Procedure Rules, as per the Committee’s request. He then referred to the addendum as outlined in the report. The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: · Councillor Jacob Williams stated that he was happy with the outlined addendum and that there was little point in updating the Contract Procedure Rules if new legislation was due from Welsh Government. · Councillor Mike Stoddart stated his concern for Parent Company Guarantees. He then sought clarification in regards to the following reference in the report; ‘…offer a reasonable reduction in cost to the Authority…’ In response, the Professional Construction Service Team Manager explained that the addendum would give the Council greater security and would ensure that at a tender stage, it would be ensured that all Contractors price the bond at an appropriate time, to allow Officers to make informed decisions and recommend the best way forward in regards to the robustness of the Parent Company Guarantee and how secure it was versus the performance bond. Councillor Stoddart was not reassured by this explanation and suggested that Contractors could increase their prices to make a guarantee a more appealing offer for the Council. The Professional Construction Service Team Manager explained that at tender stage, Contractors would be in a competitive situation from a commercial perspective, so the Council would build in an activity schedule and Contractors would increase the prices for that bond. · Councillor Williams sought clarification as to whether the matter would be reviewed by the Council, prior to the new legislation being introduced in October 2024. In response, the Interim Director of Resources / Head of Financial Services stated that the proposed addendum was an interim measure and a formal review, as outlined in the paper, would be undertaken once the new legislation was published. He highlighted that the revised Contract Procedure Rules could be brought back to the Committee for review. He explained that the wording of the addendum was designed to give Officers the option to deal with contracts on a case by case basis and decide between a Parent Company Guarantee or a Performance Bond. The Professional Construction Service Team Manager stated that not all Contractors had a Parent Company, so by default, the Council would expect any Contractor without a Parent Company to enter into a Performance Bond. · Councillor Williams highlighted that once the revised Contract Procedure Rules come before the Committee, he would suggest that no Parent Company should be in a position where they could provide the bond. The Chair advised that under the Committee’s terms of reference, any changes made would come before the Committee for review. · Councillor Stoddart sought clarification as to why the Council did not insist on bonds only. In response, the Professional Construction Service Team Manager stated that every Company within the tender list, whether they had a Parent Company or not, would need to provide a specific bond of a particular type. At present, it was said that if the Authority deemed that a Parent Company was sufficient security for the Authority, that route would progress and the financial sum against the Performance Bond would be omitted from that Contract, which would result in a saving. · Dr Norma Barry sought clarification in regards to the frameworks used, as well as whether the addendum would deter good construction companies from tendering with the Council. In response, the Interim Director of Resources / Head of Financial Services stated that frameworks were used where appropriate, such as the South West Regional framework led by Carmarthenshire. In regards to construction companies tendering with the Council, he explained that it was difficult to recruit companies and highlighted that it was about ensuring a balance between protecting the Authority and also not discouraging companies from bidding. · Dr Barry then sought clarification as to whether the South West Regional framework was the only one used by the Authority. In response, the Professional Construction Service Team Manager highlighted the various frameworks used and stated that Carmarthenshire were leading on developing a more localised consultancy framework. Dr Barry then suggested caution when using frameworks run by the private sector. · Councillor Stoddart stated that he was happy with the reductions from £5 million to £1 million as outlined in the addendum and was happy to support it as an interim measure, knowing that it would be revisited once new legislation was available from Welsh Government. Moved by Councillor Steve Alderman; Seconded by Councillor Mike Stoddart. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michael James, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham; Dr Norma Barry, Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the proposed addendum, as set out in the report, be approved for incorporation into the Contract Procedure Rules.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the dates of the forthcoming meetings of the Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year be noted. (b) That the Forward Work Programme for 2023-24 be approved.
The Committee considered a report by the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager on the Forward Work Programme for 2023-24. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager presented the report and stated that following research of various other Authorities and approval from Annual Council on 12 May 2023, the number of meetings of the Governance and Audit Committee would increase from four to five per calendar year. He also highlighted that more manageable agendas would be introduced, with a similar amount of reports but condensed where possible, and more high level summaries from Officers in meetings, as the details would be contained within the report. The Committee considered the report, with the key points highlighted as follows: • Martin Veale supported the extra meeting and sought clarification as to whether an update from Audit Wales could be expected at every meeting. In response, the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager stated that when a report was released by Audit Wales, they would be invited to the relevant meetings to present and answer questions from Members. The Chair highlighted that Audit reports were sent by email from Audit Wales when published, but agreed that representatives attending relevant meetings would be helpful for Members. • The Chair then reminded Members to let Democratic Services know with at least 48 hours’ notice, whether they would be attending meetings in person or remotely, in order for them to prepare and support the meetings more efficiently. Moved by Martin Veale; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry. The vote, undertaken by way of roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michael James, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham; Dr Norma Barry, Mr John Evans and Mr Martin Veale [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the dates of the forthcoming meetings of the Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year be noted. (b) That the Forward Work Programme for 2023-24 be approved.
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.