Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED:- That the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference be noted.
RESOLVED: That the GAC Work Programme be noted.
RESOLVED: - That the GAC Development Programme was acknowledged.
RESOLVED: That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the report and obtained satisfactory explanations regarding any areas of concern.
RESOLVED:- (i) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the Audit Wales reports attached: Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Wales (Appendix 1) and Financial Sustainability Review - Wrexham County Borough Council. (ii) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the Council’s response to the Audit Wales report: Financial Sustainability Review - Wrexham County Borough Council, detailed within Appendix 3. (iii) That officers present the audit criteria for the change program at the February meeting, covering program delivery, financial risk, and service outcomes. (iv) That the audit criteria should be shared with the Customer Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee for their review and sent to the Committee's Facilitator and Chair to determine the appropriate scrutiny actions. (v) That strategic plans should focus on outcomes for resources and be evidence-based.
RESOLVED:- (i) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the progress with the six AGS improvement areas contained in the current AGS action plan; (ii) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the assurance provided by the Governance Officer Group in relation to the council’s compliance with the Wrexham Council Code of Governance. iii) That additional evidence be provided to substantiate the reported AGS progress, as the current assurance remained weak without formal documentation. (iv) That the GAC receive more detailed feedback on the observed improvements to strengthen the case for the upward trend, pending formal evaluation.
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Becca Martin and Independent Lay Member Neil Benson.
RESOLVED:- That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2024 be signed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED:- That the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference be noted.
RESOLVED:- That the Governance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the GAC Work Programme be noted.
Members were informed that the 2022–2023 statement of accounts had been rescheduled for the February agenda. RESOLVED: That the GAC Work Programme be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: - That the GAC Development Programme was acknowledged.
Members asked a number of questions regarding the Work Programme which were responded to accordingly, and the following points were highlighted during the detailed debate:- · The Skills Matrix Update was prioritised this year due to significant changes in the committee's composition. Despite reminders and multiple distributions of the matrix, only five responses had been received. Whilst further responses were welcome, an additional link will be shared after the meeting to encourage more participation. · From the existing responses, several areas of focus have been identified: a) A link to the Code of Governance was shared on December 5. Members were encouraged to review it and raise any specific issues for further discussion. b) Additional knowledge on audit planning and methodology was needed. c) Training on financial management and accounts was delivered on November 22, which was well attended. d) A briefing note will be prepared regarding counter-fraud measures, including updates on the National Fraud Initiative (NFI), as it enters a new two-year cycle. This will be scheduled for a pre-meeting session in the New Year. e) There was a new committee duty regarding complaints. A briefing note on this topic will be shared with members, especially for new members unfamiliar with the duty. · A member emphasised the importance of the committee's commitment to enhancing its effectiveness, particularly given the significant volume of information members must process and understand. RESOLVED: - That the GAC Development Programme was acknowledged.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the report and obtained satisfactory explanations regarding any areas of concern.
The Chief Officer submitted a report (COFI/43/24) asking Members to consider the Head of Service Audit & Technician’s Interim Report for April to November 2024. The Head of Internal Audit and Technical presented the report and highlighted the main points within it. The following was discussed: · There were18 audits underway, each at different stages of completion and that no individual officer was carrying an excessive workload. · The property store was part of the trading standards system that securely stored goods that had been seized or otherwise acquired during normal trading officer duties. · Powers were exercised under various pieces of legislation, and in cases where goods were deemed to be evidenced or contravened trading standards law, there was always the potential for those goods to be seized. · Primary concern was ensuring that seized goods were securely stored and remained auditable and traceable. · If any audit requires qualification, Internal Audit will bring the concern to the Audit Committee's attention. · Amber reports are designed to provide early warnings of potential risks that could impact assurance levels, and these reports are presented to the Audit Committee. · A tracking system for recommendations has been introduced, and an annual report will be provided this year. · Internal Audit aims to report on recommendations more frequently, starting next year, once a more comprehensive data set was in place. · The Head of Audit and Technical actively participates in the change programme, advising on risk assessments for initiatives like school transport and social care. This involvement has led to the deferral of certain audits, with plans to revisit and audit the services after the changes have been implemented. · The Cemetery and Crematorium audit focused on governance, not on demand or operational hours. · Questions about the Cemetery and Crematorium service demand and hours should be directed to the Environment Technical Chief Officer, as they relate to service pressures. · Members praised the Cemetery and Crematorium services. · Security details of the trading standards audit were not disclosed, but Members were assured that internal audit had reviewed and found the controls satisfactory, with minor improvements recommended. · It was confirmed that the seized items were managed under dual control, not sole control. · The audit team was praised for the quality of the report and the team's strong progress in meeting performance targets. · The "Looked After Children" audit was an ongoing piece of work, with an initial report completed and further updates planned for May. Since it was part of proactive advisory compliance, a RAG status will be provided in the next report. · Regarding the investigations section, the "Do Not Apply" status indicated that these were not audits but investigations with specific outcomes. No assurance was required unless the findings lead to an audit or further disciplinary actions. · The disaster recovery plan focused on ICT systems and recovery from technical disruptions, not environmental issues like flooding. · Ethic audits were scoped annually and will be addressed later in the year as part of ongoing work. RESOLVED: That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the report and obtained satisfactory explanations regarding any areas of concern.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED:- (i) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the Audit Wales reports attached: Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Wales (Appendix 1) and Financial Sustainability Review - Wrexham County Borough Council. (ii) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the Council’s response to the Audit Wales report: Financial Sustainability Review - Wrexham County Borough Council, detailed within Appendix 3. (iii) That officers present the audit criteria for the change program at the February meeting, covering program delivery, financial risk, and service outcomes. (iv) That the audit criteria should be shared with the Customer Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee for their review and sent to the Committee's Facilitator and Chair to determine the appropriate scrutiny actions. (v) That strategic plans should focus on outcomes for resources and be evidence-based.
The Chief Officer for Finance and ICT submitted a report (COFI/50/24) that presented both a national and local Audit Wales examination of local authority financial sustainability. The Chief Officer for Finance and ICT presented both national and local reports, along with the Council's response, before passing over to Audit Wales. The national report highlighted financial sustainability challenges for local governments, stressing the need to balance legal and public expectations amid financial constraints, and the importance of capital investment. It noted that local government had been under financial strain since 2008, with unsustainable conditions unless action was taken. The local report revealed significant financial pressures, with no plan in place to address the funding gap as of May. Updates are expected due to ongoing transformation efforts. The Chief Officer for Finance and ICT reinforced the difficult financial outlook, citing the ongoing change programme as a key initiative to address the gap, with savings already identified for the 2025-26 budget. Audit Wales clarified that the local report reflected the situation as of May, with developments expected due to the transformation program. They noted that this financial strain was consistent across many authorities. In response to recommendations, the Council is expanding its medium-term financial plan to include a longer-term horizon, with updates to be reported with the 2025-26 budget. Despite challenges in long-term planning due to funding uncertainty, the change programme has already delivered positive results, and future reports will reflect improvements in longer-term planning. A discussion pursued and the main points were raised: · That best practice strategic plan examples can be found in paragraph 37 of the report. · It was emphasised that strategic plans should focus on outcomes for resources and be evidence-based. · Value for money was based on economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, with a focus on achieving the desired outcomes for the planned resources. · Political decisions were outside the scope of the audit, but the implementation and monitoring of those decisions were key for ensuring value. · The GAC has a role in ensuring the council’s long-term sustainability, not just annual budgets. It was expected to ensure that strategic arrangements were in place and had the desired effect, rather than overseeing the Change Programme itself. · The Chief Officer for Finance and ICT clarified that savings were tracked with a RAG (Red, Amber, and Green) rating based on the assessed risk of delivery, which was included in regular monitoring reports. · Most of Wrexham Council’s borrowing was related to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), not the general fund. · Due to the size of the housing stock and the costs associated with implementing the Welsh Quality Housing Standard, borrowing appeared high when compared to net costs of services. · The HRA was separate from the general fund, meaning these costs did not affect general fund finances. · The high percentage of borrowing as a proportion of usable reserves was linked to Wrexham’s low levels of reserves compared to other councils. · It was more critical for councils with low reserves to plan for the longer term. Whilst the annual settlements posed challenges, the medium-term financial plan (MTFP) should extend beyond just the next year. · Councils needed to anticipate future gaps and identify savings earlier. · Though councils often focused on balancing the current year's budget, the best practices involved considering future financial pressures. · The transformation program was designed to address both short-term needs and long-term sustainability by filling gaps estimated in the MTFP, even when precise figures were unavailable. · The value of data comparisons was emphasised, and Members were introduced to the "Data Tools" on the Audit Wales website. · The interactive resource on local government financial sustainability allows benchmarking of various metrics and viewing of trends over time. Members requested that the link be circulated for easier access. · The MTFP would cover four years and that it will be presented in February. · The £1.77 million carried forward from 2023-24 was addressed with savings measures approved in July, and the latest forecast for the £4.9 million pressure would be updated in January. · Members were given assurance about the audit backlogs and that the situation in Wales was healthier than in England. Whilst there had been some delays due to the pandemic, Audit Wales had met its deadlines for this year for all accounts received within the timescales and had no underlying issues, and progress was being made. · Wrexham's Financial accounts were not yet signed off due to a specific technical issue, but this was expected to be resolved soon, with the goal of returning to normal timescales by June 2026. · The Statutory duty for Audit Wales was to ensure councils had proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, which aligned with assessing value for money. Whilst their local work focused on council arrangements, their national work involves broader studies and recommendations. · Audit Wales’ role was somewhat similar to Estyn’s but with a focus on financial management and accountability within local government. · A member requested that officers return to the February meeting with audit criteria for the change program, covering program delivery, financial risk, and service outcomes, and suggested sharing the criteria with the Customer Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee. They also confirmed they would send the report to the Committee's Facilitator and Chair for further scrutiny action. RESOLVED:- (i) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the Audit Wales reports attached: Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Wales (Appendix 1) and Financial Sustainability Review - Wrexham County Borough Council. (ii) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the Council’s response to the Audit Wales report: Financial Sustainability Review - Wrexham County Borough Council, detailed within Appendix 3. (iii) That officers present the audit criteria for the change program at the February meeting, covering program delivery, financial risk, and service outcomes. (iv) That the audit criteria should be shared with the Customer Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee for their review and sent to the Committee's Facilitator and Chair to determine the appropriate scrutiny actions. (v) That strategic plans should focus on outcomes for resources and be evidence-based.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED:- (i) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the progress with the six AGS improvement areas contained in the current AGS action plan; (ii) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the assurance provided by the Governance Officer Group in relation to the council’s compliance with the Wrexham Council Code of Governance. iii) That additional evidence be provided to substantiate the reported AGS progress, as the current assurance remained weak without formal documentation. (iv) That the GAC receive more detailed feedback on the observed improvements to strengthen the case for the upward trend, pending formal evaluation.
The Chief Executive submitted a report (CE/24/24) that was in accordance with the GAC Terms of Reference that: (a) Reviewed the progress against the six significant improvement areas identified in the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for the year ended 31 March 2024; and (b) Considered the report of the Governance Officer Group on the Council’s compliance with its local Code of Governance and effectiveness of the governance framework. The Corporate Team Manager, Performance Improvement & Partnerships, introduced and presented the report. The following was discussed:- · A Member commented that five out of six areas were showing improvement, with one area remaining stable but it was still a significant issue. The key concern was around values and behaviours, noting the need to change the direction of travel to ensure this issue diminished in significance. · It was clarified that the report provided a high-level summary of actions in progress. · Members discussed the need for more information to evidence the upward trend in relation to values and behaviours and agreed that there was a need for more detailed information in relation to the evaluation of work to date on values and behaviours. There was a preference for more evidence to substantiate the reported progress, stressing that without formal evidence, the assurance remained weak. This was requested for inclusion in future reports to better assess progress. It was suggested that whilst the formal evaluation is awaited, more details on the feedback could help provide stronger support for the upward trend. · Officers confirmed that the need for a formal evaluation to provide evidence of effectiveness had been recognised, and as explained in the report, more detailed feedback would be available next year: the Head of HR&OD would be undertaking an evaluation in the next quarter and this would precede Audit Wales’ own follow up review in the Q4. Both review would help gauge the effectiveness of current actions and inform future reports, including the Annual Governance Statement. · The actions outlined in the report were presented at a high level; however, it was acknowledged that this represented ongoing work, including collaboration with the WLGA and the Standards Committee, as part of the governance framework which addressed these issues. The primary focus should remain on the progress being made, particularly in light of the observed upward trend. · The Annual Governance Statement was typically agreed around June and July, with a mid-year update (the current report) and a year-end review to track progress. · There was a need to understand the nature of the evaluation, expressing concern that a simple form-based approach might not provide sufficient assurance. · A Member requested that future reports clarified the type of evaluation conducted so that the committee could assess whether it met their assurance needs. · A Member commented on the helpfulness of Table 3 in the report, noting that it reflected prudent management of the council's finances, particularly on how reserves were being used and that this approach should be highlighted in the annual statement as it demonstrated the council's competence and conscientious financial management compared to other councils. RESOLVED:- (i) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the progress with the six AGS improvement areas contained in the current AGS action plan; (ii) That the Governance & Audit Committee considered the assurance provided by the Governance Officer Group in relation to the council’s compliance with the Wrexham Council Code of Governance. iii) That additional evidence be provided to substantiate the reported AGS progress, as the current assurance remained weak without formal documentation. (iv) That the GAC receive more detailed feedback on the observed improvements to strengthen the case for the upward trend, pending formal evaluation.
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.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.