 Yn y cwmach, mae'r gweithio hyffordi hon ac i ni'n amlwg hwn yn y cyflwydd i chi i gweithio cyfran hyn a gweithio'r cyfran Gwpanol Cymru. Rwy'n cael ei gwertho mwyaf i cwmysgol y Cwmysgol Ogotson, ac roedd cyfan hyryrw4 o'r plesio. Maen nhw'n gwneud i'r gweithio fel yr oedd o'r cyfrwyng ar gweithio'r llai, â'r cyflwng cyfrwyng yn llach gyfarfodol i'r rydym viad. y cwmraeth ffollows y microphone being switched on so counsellers and officers are advised to wait a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up. Please can those participating in the meeting by the live stream indicate that you wish to speak via the chat column. Please do not use the chat column for any other purpose. Make sure that your device is fully charged and that you switch your microphone off unless you are invited to do otherwise. Please ensure that you have switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they may do not interrupt proceedings. Please use a headset when speaking and hold the microphone close to your mouth. When you are invited to address this meeting please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you finish addressing the meeting please turn off your microphone immediately. Speak slowly and clearly and please do not talk over or interrupt any apologies. Item 1 on our agenda is Apologies for Absence. Patrick, are there any apologies for absence? Yes, Chair. We have apologised and councillor Joe Sayles at no substitutes. Declarations of interest. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? If an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting could you please raise that point? Declarations of interest. Minutes. Are members happy to approve the minutes of meeting of the committee held on 20 September 2021 as a correct record? It was just, I agree, it's a reflection of the meeting chair. There's just a couple of things within the report or within the minutes, sorry, that would just be great to have followed up for example the organisational chart and things like that, which I appreciate it's been a lot on but if we could still make sure that we receive that information and the recruitment of the 0.54 time equivalent we can make sure that's happened. Thank you, Chair. You'd like to respond to that Peter? So are we there? In response to the second question yes I can confirm that we've recruited the point. Thank you Chair, thank you Peter. If there are no further approvals on the minutes, I move to the approval of the minutes. If the committee agrees we can approve the minutes by affirmation. Okay, agreed. The next item on the agenda is public questions. We have received two public questions, one from Rosalind Barden and one from Daniel Fulton. Rosalind Barden please can you ask your question? Yes, good morning everyone. Thanks for inviting me to ask this question. Just by very brief background, I actually worked in IT for a number of years and I led big change programmes including implementing ERP systems. That was always in the commercial world and we always managed to achieve that without any interruption to the court or the reporting cycles because we had plans, implementation that follows strict rules, we had thorough testing in what we were doing but I keep seeing issues with your fixed asset register causing order issues of the council. So that leads me into my question, which is I note that delays in finalising South Cams District Councils 2018-19 accounts are being blamed in part on issues around the implementation fixed asset register. I'm struggling to understand how the council got itself into the position of what looks to be issues with data migration over three years after the new register was implemented and I would therefore like to ask the committee if there has been any investigation into what went wrong and if so what changes to the procedure being put in place to avoid similar issues arising. If not will the committee recommend that such an investigation and a lessons learned exercise be carried out so that the council can avoid further implementation problems. Thank you. The asset register was originally implemented over three years ago and issues with the data migration were identified by the capital account and currently managing this when they took this on in New York in 2019. A lot of work has been undertaken to correct this data and update the register but it is fair to say that it is taking longer than expected. We believe the register now contains the correct data but can find no evidence of a project plan and proper testing being carried out when the data was originally migrated in early 2018. Quite clearly this is unsatisfactory and the council needs to understand what went wrong and why. Once both the council and audit team are happy that the register is accurate we can carry out that necessary review. We have also asked for a review to be carried out of the system by our internal audit team so they can satisfy themselves that all the controls and processes are in place going forward. As an aside this audit committee did request that internal audit got involved in the fixed asset register review and the internal audit team will be conducting a review of the fixed asset register. Do you have a supplementary question? Yes, thank you for that. Yes, thanks for that. That's good to know. I did actually since submitting my question had a chance to read the risk register which is in the pack for this meeting and I can find some IT risks but they are all to do with business continuity, total systems failure, security breaches and so on. What I can't see in there and perhaps might want to be considered given the experience on this project is are there risks concerned with other implementations that the council has carried out in the last while and could yet come and bite or are there issues in the way that the council carries out implementations in general that need to be addressed so that we don't get repeat of this kind of implementation issues. So I think in the risk register there should be a risk around software implementation. That's my supplementary. Okay. Given the technical nature of that question, I'd request that we provide a written response to that question and review with all our IT departments. I'll provide that response to the committee post-post this meeting. Is that it? Okay. Well, yes, that's the way of doing it. Thank you. Chairman, may I ask if we can have a written answer? No, I did. And to everybody involved, please. Thank you. We will get a written response to the question and provide to the committee and ensure it's provided to the people responsible. Okay. Thank you for your question. Daniel Foulson, can you please ask your question? Yes, Chair. Thank you. Does the chair of the committee feel that the government arrangements for the council's shared services are currently fit for purpose? So, yes, I am satisfied with the current governance arrangements of the shared services and that they are appropriate for each of the services with member oversight from each council. These arrangements have been in place for a number of years and are subject to review currently to ensure that they are fit for purpose moving forward as our services and relationships continue to develop. Do you have a supplementary question? Yes, I do. Thank you for your response, by the way. The council's information and communication and technology functions are the responsibility of 3C shared services ICT. And as today's meeting papers note, the council considers there to be a significant risk of major IT failure resulting in a complete loss of service and network connectivity. The governance in regards to this issue is supposed to be provided by quarterly performance, finance and risk reviews undertaken by the shared service director board with each head of service. Amid other concerns about performance at 3C shared services ICT recently, I attempted to contact the head of service. I was alarmed to discover that the head of services email address at 3C was no longer operational and attempts to contact the head of service through two active departmental emails were not successful. So what concerned about the lack of response, I tried to find an organizational chart for 3C shared services ICT, which required sorting through two and a half years of meeting papers at eight different committees of three different councils before I could actually find the organizational chart. As I did, I noticed that the head of services at 3C ICT, which serves Honeydinshire District Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council, apparently a full time role. The same individual is also apparently occupies a separate full time position as assistant director for IT at Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council. The head of service simply doesn't have the time to address the risk of major IT infrastructure failures, given her dual full time roles on two different services, serving a total of five councils. The chair of the corporate governance committee agreed to discuss the government arrangements of 3C ICT with the chair of the scrutiny committee and agree for one committee or the other to add the governance arrangements at 3C ICT to the agenda for a future meeting. I will have to give a written response and discuss with the chair of scrutiny as to where this lies. My position would be that the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee are an overview for the frameworks of the council and the scrutiny involved in the operations of the council insurance that they are sufficient. So we need to understand where the gap lies and where the meeting of your question is as to where it fits in audit or scrutiny. So I will contact the chair of the scrutiny committee and provide a written response, but also on your very detailed information on 3C ICT. We will also seek to get head of service involved as well. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay. That concludes the questions. We move to agenda item five, audit appointment for 2324 onwards. The appointing of the auditors may ask Peter Muddock to introduce this item. Thank you. So this item is about appointing an auditor for the period starting in 2023-24. The process goes in a five year cycle and the current appointment cycle ends at the end of 2022-23. We have to inform the PSAA which routes we need to take or we want to take by 31 March. So this report is just outlining the merits of one route or the other. Just to say the recommendation is around following the auditor appointment route with the public sector auditing appointments. 98% of local authorities go by that route. Whichever route we take, the appointed auditor will be the same. There's about six firms that can do local authority audits. So the recommendation is to follow the PSAA route on the basis that to follow the other route would involve procurement process, quite a bit of work, probably additional expense and I don't believe there will be any benefit to be gained by doing that. So just for members to comment possibly. But the recommendation is that we join the PSAA route. So the only questions or comments. Councillor Williams and then Councillor Howe. I think realistically it is the most sensible and pragmatic. It's not the perfect route. But I think it is the most pragmatic route that we have available to us given the very small number of firms that actually cover this field. And what I would like to ask, because I say we've obviously not been entirely happy with this, is the risk to us if we weren't on our own able to find and secure an external auditor, what risks that would expose us to, because that's what's making me think sometimes it's the better of two evils. The risk if we were to do our own contract is that we might not actually get anybody who wants to do the contract by that route, so we could potentially run the exercise. The contract that's the PSAA run is with the auditors rather than the authority and that's a standard contract. So you know the level of service, you know what you're going to get from that contract and the difficulty will be if we do it ourselves. It's scoping out that contract so that we could be covering anything and that would be quite a lot of work. So those will be the two risks I would see that we would expose ourselves to if we went alone really. Councillor Howe. Thank you. I appreciate I might be coming in here later in the day. But have we looked at the ESPO audit framework and thought about using that after all it is a local authority owned company? I haven't. Chairman may I just request that when you have the opportunity to look at ESPO ESPO and if you put into computer ESPO audit framework and I believe it's lot to see is the external audit framework. ESPO is a company that's part owned by Cambridgeshire County Council as well as several other councils and they provide frameworks as well as textbooks and things which we all ask ourselves. Just have a look that's all I'm asking for. I appreciate I'm coming in late in the day. Thank you. I'm Councillor Williams and myself for county councils and we should declare. Councillor John mewn is was a county counciller. Thanks Chair. So just a question on the PSAA contract. If we go through that route is can I ask the auditors engaged on a sort of standardized contract that are shared that's shared with all councils that work through PSAA or are we able to add supplementary clauses to that contract? So the contract itself is standard because every audit has certain things that are saying in them. However some authorities will have additional requirements. So for example we have a wholly unsubstituary so there's some additional work that the auditors would need to do that they wouldn't need to do for other authorities. There's no scope for there to be some variation but obviously that needs to be quite tightly managed. Thank you Chair. If I may ask a brief supplementary question. So the reason why I ask this is that we had at a couple of points conversations with EY about the impact of the resourcing at particular points throughout the audit process and the financial impact that delays have caused on the council. And I just wonder when we've had those conversations the response has very much been that the costs to the council are relate to work done as opposed to any additional costs that are indirectly incurred by the council as a result of their lack of resourcing at any given point. I wonder whether we might be able to include within the contract some provision that acknowledges that should the future auditors find themselves in a position where they have lack of resorts which indirectly incurred costs to the council then there is some recognition of that within the balance. Yes that sounds highly sensible so yes I'll pick that point up. And any further questions from the committee? So the recommendation is that this committee agree that the appointing of the auditor for the next counting period and the PSA contract and framework is used for this process from 1st of April 2023 as laid out. Sorry Chair. It's just on the comments made by councillor how perhaps in the recommendation we can have that subject to looking into this all terms here. We know that hasn't been explored yet as we've got to March. Is that correct? Yes we have to submit an expression of interest I think early in the new year so I need to look at that. So Chairman if we could sort of delegate the investigation of this alternative to Mr Maddox as section 151 officer so that he has time to act if he needs to but I think given the situation we found ourselves an alternative looking into it would be diligent. I agree. Councillor John Williams. Thank you Chair. Just a point of information unless the councillor obviously was going through the same process as us but at the moment and in the past it has used PSAA. So yes it does have it has set up an independent company but as far as I'm aware when I was on the Audit and Accounts Committee or the Canada Council we used a PSAA appointed external auditor. Noted but. Chairman with your permission. I'm quite happy for it to delegate to yourself and others for the final decision but I mean you know we can give a yes now but all I'm asking is just have consider a yes book that's all if it's not suitable for whatever reason then that comes down to yourselves. I think I take on board the comments and as outlined the change the recommendation that it is a recommendation pending a suitable review and then feedback to myself as chair with the section 151 officer. I'm more than happy with that Chairman. I will provide then a written response to the committee. If that's your proposed recommendation Chair then I'm happy with that and happy to second it. So pending that is the committee in agreement. So go to agenda item six the final accounts update may ask Peter Maddux to present this item. Thank you so this is a report that looks at the outstanding accounts that we've got. I've got a colleague on the call who can answer any detailed questions about the timeline but he has produced a Gant chart that scopes out when we think we're able to complete the audit by that's on page 15. So you'll see that the 1920 audit is proposed that that will commence early in February of 2022 and you'll see the timeline for the other audits there. There is a contingency built in at the end and because with any project like this there's bound to be some slippage. So we're sort of suggesting that the process will be complete by the end of October but with slippage and things hopefully by the end of January. We have had initial discussions with the auditors about the timeline but this is where we are at the moment but obviously depending on when 28 to 19 accounts get signed off it may or may not have an impact on this timeline. So has there any questions on this or comments? Thank you chair. Looking at page 15 I think it's very much down with the spirit of the recommendation that was received by full council about when we hoped to be catching up and getting up to date. But given the experiences of committee over the previous few years I think it would be it's relevant I should ask and challenge how realistic this is and whether we have the resources to implement it. Hoping chair obviously that the answer is going to be yes but it would be wrong not to ask that question given the situation we find ourselves in. So I think there may be a supplementary based on the answer given chair but I really would like to know do we have the resources in place to implement this and are we being realistic here. Thank you. So yeah so I believe we do have the resources in place. My colleague is on the call who might be able to give a bit more detail. But him and his colleague who we recruited recently have got considerable experience in delivering these sort of situations and the great experience with our authorities. I think we're very clear on what we need to do, when we need to do it by, we need to liaise with the auditors. I don't know whether James you want to come in and comment on this at all. But this is my colleague James Carter so he's leading on the getting the accounts up to date. So I don't know whether people have met him but he's got considerable experience in this sort of thing. Thank you for inviting me to comment on this. In that report before you, I do comment on the action that SCDC have taken to ensure that they have adequate resources and how those resources could be identified by effectively putting back some of those requests for information which tend to delay the auditors completing back to the individuals within the finance team that would provide that. That gives them the opportunity at that stage to be able to assess whether they can handle that additional information request with their business as usual and as they currently find themselves in the budgetary preparation process. The officers have agreed to provide additional out of hours work which we've identified already in the process information has been coming in after normal office hours. So it does appear to be working satisfactory at the moment but that also gives those individuals an opportunity to take that up with their department heads if they felt that they weren't able to and then they would be able to call for additional resources with their day to day. My colleagues experience of this with a lot of authorities is bringing in additional resources at a high level tends to be counterproductive because you find those that know are running around trying to explain to those new resources what's required and it tends to be counterintuitive. I've found in the past that this method of putting it back to the individuals that produce the information and then they can ask for resources for their additional day to day business as usual is the better route. Although there is three or four months slippage built in depending on there are a lot of dependents but depending on EY and depending on the closure of 18-19 it's genuinely achievable for the authority to get back up to date in my opinion within the period outlined. Thank you James. Thank you and thank you for explanation. I don't disagree with actually the answer that's been given to me in the practical terms and everything but with that in mind can I ask how many people in the finance department have we got in on an interim or short term contract basis and the extra results we have whether they are also interim and if so for how long please chair because we also know turnover is if we're using that method which I agree with we also are reliant on those people being in place for consistency purposes. Thank you chair. Thank you so James and Tracy here the two people involved with us until the end of this game chart so we sign them up well we sign them up till October I think I need to double check that but we clearly need them on board to drive this process through so they are both interns. Sorry chair if I can clarify October is that October 22 or 23? 22 because the chart goes up to 23 so October 22 and given the method that's been adopted in other members of the team that aren't specifically in this how many of those are on interim basis. Thank you chair. Any further queries? Thank you chair. Yes I think certainly our experience of over the past few years in terms of the timelines is that we've the timelines have tended to reach backwards constantly with new things being discovered. So I think whenever a schedule is put together clearly there is some buffer here for discovered things that will be discovered along the way but I think it's very difficult to put an end point on particular tasks if you've got a sequence of unknown unknowns essentially that have been discovered. And I just wonder I know that a lot of work is going into the 18-19 accounts that is structural with a view to getting them in a place where future years can be done on a more planned basis. I think my question chair is are we confident that when that's sorted out that we'll be in a position where we can create timelines that we can largely stick to as a council in terms of the audit process. So I think the biggest issue with the 18-19 accounts is the asset register. Once we've got that agreed the process once it's ongoing is actually relatively straightforward but the biggest process is getting the asset register right so I think there's no doubt that's been the biggest issue around these accounts once we've rolled that over and we're putting information in and we know that the starting point is correct. There have been other issues around the audit but generally I think the rest of the audit has gone a lot better than the previous year but unfortunately the issues with the asset register have rather overshadowed that so I am confident that once the asset register is in place correct that that process will be much more speedy and much more well it will be easier for everyone to follow I think it's there to say. I think picking up on something that councillor Heather Williams mentioned earlier and my question would be what James has said we're looking to essentially backfill finance teams that a backfill can do the day to day and release resource into the audit. What other demands are there outside of the audit in this time frame? I think it would be useful to see we've got an audit time frame but where are the crunch points whether it's releasing of budgets finalising of documentation where there are specific crunch points that will impinge on the finance team. So as regards the budget I mean that's the biggest element. A lot of the detailed budget work has been done since February we've had a deputy and one by one and chief accountant who will also be involved in the budget and the audit process so we have got an additional person compared to what we had before but I think the main competing demand for the account. On the ground should be pretty much complete by January so I think we do need to keep this under review because potentially there could be something crops up that we need to get somebody in a fairly short notice. We've got a number of agencies that we can go to to get resources in fairly quickly but I'm relatively confident that once we're over the main detailed budget process the focus then switches to myself and the deputy head of finance to prepare all of the papers so they will then have a little bit more time to deal with audit queries but I think we do need to keep it under review pretty much on a week by week basis just to make sure that that is the case and if we need additional resources we'll have to move in quickly I think. And a second question is this is our time frame. Do we have a time frame on the auditors? I think we've discussed this in an overall fairly broad brush approach but I'm going to say I don't know where the mind wants to come in and he's just appeared on the screen. Thank you Peter. So I think as Peter alluded to in the broad terms we have no particular issues with the time frame that's been put before us. Clearly the key starting point in that is obviously finishing 1819 because we need as with any audit process we need a leading period before we come in and do your final accounts audit. So we have to do our planning to make sure we get our risk right. We need to obviously report the risk to the committee to make sure we're all happy with the audits where it should be. And then we can go in and do the final accounts work. So all that is predicated on us being able to finish 1819 in a period that allows us to do that before the main audit blocks that's delivered in this Gant chart. I would say from a as Peter has mentioned just sorry if I'm OK just just going back on a question or two. So I think Peter's right that 1920 once the issues with the fixed asset register has been resolved should mean a smooth approach. So we're losing some of those key risks from the audit. I think for an audit to run as well as it can. So all of us as auditors want to go in and day one and leave on day X however long that audit block is. Let's say it's a six week block and in essence find no issues which would be nice because that would be a smooth audit process and that's again predicated on the quality of the working papers that any audited body can produce. I think it's it's down to the council to work out how it can ensure those working papers that they're delivering for audit of that right quality. And I know the work that James and Tracy his colleague have been doing is obviously driving that forward. But that that's the position we would like to see. You know going forward as auditors that we come in that the working papers that support the balances that are presented in your financial statements are of a good quality to allow us to come in. Do our work tick each bit of the accounts off in a progressive nature and then leave on that final day as we we've planned. Sorry I don't know if I answered your question but in essence yes at the moment the Gant chart doesn't cause us any major concerns but it is based on us obviously finishing the 1819 audit to have the lead in time into 1920 and then the subsequent years after that. Any further questions? Thank you chair. I didn't. It's the same question that I posed to to our own finance department. I'd like to ask as we've now got the external orders with us about the realistic realisticity of this page 15 and the resources because it's very difficult for us at here chair. I think having gone down this process and being assured many things on many occasions and the reality being quite the opposite. So am I writing in what's just been suggested that EY if the council complies and provides information in the time that it does that EY have the resources also to adhere to this timetable because previously obviously EY's delays have caused issues. Thank you chair. So we are I think as as Janet mentioned at the last committee we are. Word we had happy we want to catch up with these audits as much as the council does because this the any on running audit not just of this council causes us issues because of the black a log of audits which compounds any resourcing issues. There are issues in the market generally about resources across all audit firms and across accountancy in general, but as it stands at the moment we would be in a position to be able to resource as per your gant chart to be able to complete those audits. But as I say that would have to change depending on when we can finish 1819 off because obviously that will change the blocks where your audits are and it's how we we fit that into our overall resource picture for all the other audits we've got going. So, for example, we have key points in time when our NHS audits need to be delivered across end of April May. So depending where the 1920 block moved back, if that is what happens, we'd have to look at how that then gets resourced in. So currently we have the resources to be able to deliver. If 1819 gets delivered in an appropriate time frame and signed off. Thank you chair. Yeah, I mean I have to say I'm I'm nervous when I hear we want to catch up and get the resources because you know I'm sure many of us would want to be a millionaire, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen. And so, so if I've understood this correctly, the resources are in place for this. EYs is guaranteeing us that they will not distract from this timetable so long as we meet the 1819 deadline, which is to have it finished by the December 31, I guess, of this month now. I forgot to do the advent calendar this morning, I'm in trouble. But yes, so we've got 31 days and then you can guarantee that you will do this and have the resources in place. Yes. So we have resources booked in. Let's link to these time frames as it stands at the moment based on delivery for this Gantt chart. Thank you chair and thank you for that definite answer. We don't normally get those. He's appreciated. Yes, all things being willing with 1819. I mean, it may be that we come on to it on the next agenda right, but certainly my understanding is that the expectation is to try and complete in December what we will not sign off until January. So I just want to confirm that the signing off doesn't delay the start. That'll be my question. You're saying we've got to get all done by the 31st, but I'm aware now that although we have the best intention, the expectation is that we won't sign off until sometime January. So does that cause then this position to be out of scope? Sorry, is that a question to me, chair? It's quite a question to you, Mark. Yes, sorry. So I think as per the Gantt chart so that it shows sign off at the very beginning of January, which is what we're aiming for, and that's what would need to happen for the rest of that timing to then flow. As you say, our report shows we are clearly still in progress on 1819. So it's seeming that sign off doesn't get pushed back further because if any further delays in signing off 1819, then we are currently in that process that the Gantt chart would show or the picture that that Gant chart shows. So what is the drop dead date for signing? So I don't have an answer for that, but I can come back to the committee with it if we want a definitive end date before this starts getting kicked back is what I think you're asking Tony. Yeah, I think that that is what the committee really needs to understand is that we have reports here. We understand the progress is being made. There are still some outstanding items that we are providing information for and there is still audit work ongoing. Once that audit work is complete, there will then be a review of the accounts prepared and the notes and the technical papers that will then enable, assuming that you are happy with what is presented and reconciled that then we will be in a position to sign off 1819. Given that we're talking about wanting to be in a position for 1920 in the future years, we need to understand the drop dead date of when this committee meets to sign those accounts. Because that will be one of the things that we need to come to at the end of this meeting as well is what meeting date we have in mind for January to sign those accounts off. I think it would be important for us to be aware of that council audience. Yes, chair. I'm just very conscious that what you said about from the point of view of our own committee and the fact that we have to give notice of agendas and things like that. I believe it's working day notice and we've got a new year and a bank holiday and everything else that if there is a date that it needs to be done by, if it's the 4th of January or whatever, if it's going to be that early in the year that's going to be needed, then I suggest we get a date in and that things aren't held up from not having a committee space. If ultimately things happen and it can't be achieved and that meeting can be postponed, but given the notice that needs to be given, maybe democratic services need to advise us as well as committee, chair. Thank you, chair, and since I spent a lot of time with the team over the last few weeks, I just wanted to clarify that there are two bits to this. There's completing the fixed asset register to the satisfaction of EY and at that point we can roll over the fixed asset register to start 1920. Everything else, there are 127 working papers that we need to do for 1920 of which we've done 70. So considerable work has already been undertaken on 1920, but we're sort of somewhat hampered by the fixed asset register and hopefully that will be resolved soon. I think the actual signing off of the accounts and this audit committee, while obviously it's critical in the process once it's the fixed asset register that we require to get sort of landed so that we can make sure that all of the working papers are then completed in time for the auditors to come in. So I just wanted to clarify those different things because actually there's loads of work that we can get on with between now and the end of January. Thank you, chair. Given the advice that's just been given to us by our chief exec, can we pose us back to EY then as to what they mean when they say sign off and what their expectations are, whether it is a case of addressing the fixed asset register that's just been explained, but the statutory processes of signing off can follow or do they expect when they say sign off for everything to happen? As it seems to be some ambiguity here. So the process we need to go through as an audit is we need to conclude on the work over the property plan and equipment. We need to get to a conclusion that we're happy with with the council to be able to then report on any issues or audit adjustments we've identified. We then would then need to obtain the council's final statement of accounts, reconciliations, new updates to the fixed asset register to reconcile that together. All that work would then need to be completed before we could and reviewed before we could look to then officially sign the audit opinion, which is what would we're talking about in early January. Janet has actually just joined the call. I don't know, Janet, if you want to add anything to that. Thanks Mark and apologies committee members for being late. I did have a clash and was just presenting another report as Mark was messaging to say that you got onto this agenda item. So as Mark has explained, we need to finalise our fieldwork on the numbers and then adjustments need to be put through the accounts by offices and they need to do their quality assessment on that they have now got those right before we can then finalise our work to check that those have all gone through. Complete our conclusion procedures, which involve subsequent events, reviews, letter of representation from management, reporting back out to you the totality of all of our findings from this audit. And then we'll be in a position once you've approved the accounts on that basis for us to sign our opinion and provide that to you. I think the question is really of those timelines at which stage can you commit to starting 1920. So is it that you've signed the rep letter, signed the accounts, it's come to committee, it's all been approved and then you can start or is there an earlier stage in that process where perhaps you've issued your order to opinion and you go right we've completed our bit. There is now an administration process to go through that has to be completed but actually we can now have issued our opinion start 1920 and what date is that in that timeline. Yeah, and this is the timeline on the Gant chart presumably it's been presented. Yeah, I mean, we can, we can start our planning procedures at at any stage where we have resource available to apply to the Southcams audit for 1920. The issue is that until your numbers have stopped moving and we're satisfied that your systems are reconciling into those. You know, there's very little point us starting another audit until we've got satisfaction that you've been able to stop the numbers moving, clarify what's in the various systems and get that right in the financial statements, because otherwise we'll end up with, you know, open ended audits running at simultaneously. And that really isn't a satisfactory or efficient way and it actually puts extra burden on the offices because they then have to move between years. So, from our perspective, you know, we're comfortable with the Gant chart if we can get satisfaction to close down 1819, we will then move quickly into getting through our planning work. What's essential though is that the offices have produced a set of statements for 1920 that they are satisfied of the quality and it reconcils back to the underlying systems and there's evidence, clear evidence trails to be able to support those numbers. So, when you're ready, we'll start, but I would like to close 1819 first because otherwise we'll end up with two years running and really the difficulties that we're having in pinning down those final areas of the numbers means that, you know, it could have a knock on impact into 1920. And so we'd end up having to duplicate the work and that is not a satisfactory position to be in. Capsule Williams. Thank you, chair, and apologies for the frustration and getting an answer to our question that we can all agree on here. But I'm just going to read. It says finish and audit sign off and we've been told that for EY to have the resources we need to comply with this chart. And I think categorically here we've got one. We've got a great demonstration of how we're getting ourselves in a pickle time and time again because I don't think we're exactly clear on what actually the requirement is on on every part of the process. So that sign off. Is it a case of your satisfaction or do you want this committee to have signed off those accounts? And if so, what is that date? We've been asked what, you know, the drop dead date is. We still haven't had an answer to that. What do we need to do in early January in order to comply with this Gant chart to ensure that everything else can follow in the time? Is it just address the fixed asset register or is it actually the whole full formal process? I just want a date. We need to do it by and want to know what we want. We need to do by that date chair. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was going to be that complex a question. I think the issue is how, you know, how quickly can you give us the last elements of information that we need so that we can complete our procedures? We've listed them out in our report. We had expected that we would have had answers to those questions the last time we met at the audit committee. It's taken us to now to still not have the full answers to those questions. If that could be resolved pre Christmas and a set of revised accounts produced, we could be signing them off at the next audit committee in January. So if you want a date that the organization needs to aim for, you need to do this by the audit committee date in January. We'll sign them off at that point and then we can move forward. But if you can't answer our questions so that we can finish our audit, we can't provide you with an audit opinion. So you need to do this for the next audit committee date. There's your date, Councillor Williams. Thank you chair. So I'm fully aware and understand what we need to do and that we need to answer the questions. The issue we have is we've been advised if we don't get to a certain point by early January then EY's resources will change. I'm not and I'm giving benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure if you were here for that part of the conversation. So that's what we're asking. What is EY's cut off of if you go past this date, we then cannot comply and fit our resources in the plan. So you're saying that's the January audit meeting. So if we have signed off of all the accounts before that meeting, that is our drop dead date in a sense. Yes, because if you miss that date, we will use our resources that we have scheduled for February to close down the 80 to continue to try to close down the 1819 audit. We won't start the 1920 audit without having closed the 1819 audit for all the reasons I've just given you about the inefficiency of running two audit years in one go. So we will have to reassign our resources that are on the Gant chart for the 1920 audit to complete the 1819 audit. And that's when we start to slip across this plan. Can I just to clarify then, can I just confirm that EY requires that this committee signs off the 1819 accounts before you start on the next ones. That needs to happen. So the starting point for this chart is that the meeting of this committee where that happens and no work can begin by EY on the next set of accounts until that happens. Work could begin, but the point is it doesn't make any, it's an inefficient process to do so. So I'm telling you that I will allocate my resources to do the 1920 audit when we have signed off the 1819 accounts. Just as a follow up question, is that because we are trying to get to a start date because for us to be able to assess the viability of this plan, we need to know the starting date. So when you say we sign off, is that to EY's satisfaction that the 1819 accounts are complete or is it the formal sign off of this committee? What are those two options? What is the start point for the work for EY on the next set of accounts? The start, practically it is the former. So when we are satisfied that the accounts are ready to be signed, we can, you know, if the audit committee date is a couple of weeks after that, that's fine. We need to get to satisfaction on your accounts. We will then move to start 1920 if it's just a formal meeting of the committee that needs to approve those. My concern is that we set date. I'm trying to give you something simple to sort of focus on which is your audit committee date because then we might have a running chance of getting to that and getting these things signed off. So that's the next hard date in the diary in the calendar, which I'm suggesting you use as your indication that we start at that point. But practically, if we're all satisfied a fortnight before that, then we'll switch our attention on to 1920. Councillor Williams. I really don't wish to drag this out, but we don't have a date for January as a means to. Can I suggest you put one in? I think this is where the call goes round. Sorry, I've got rebels laughing and it's infectious here. That's what we're trying to figure out here is what dates do we put in the diary because we don't want to do a date that doesn't comply with your schedule because we've got sort of an orange bar in one out of four. So that's what we're trying to actually ascertain here is what dates do we need to put in. There's no point in us putting the fourth in if it's not going to be ready by then. But equally, if you need it done by the 17th, there's no point in us putting it on the 20th. So we are actually in all of this carnage and trying to get a date for January. So have you had any advice as to what a good date would be? And I'm going to ask anybody that's an officer internally, externally at this stage. Chair. Councillor Sample. My understanding of the answer, the previous answer is that EY don't require this committee to sign off to have that meeting. In order to get started with the 18, 19 accounts. So I think if you can confirm that's the case, then what we need is that date. The date that the 18, 19 accounts process problem. We need the date by which the work on the 18, 19 accounts has been completed to EY satisfaction. What is that date? And that's the date that you can start on the next set of accounts. So if we know that date, we know the start date for this diagram. Well, I would suggest that you aim for the 14th of January in that case. But the issue is, and we've said this at every meeting, until we have the information from the organisation, we cannot complete our audit. So I can give you, I can suggest that we should be done and finished by the 14th of January. But if I don't get the information in the next couple of weeks, then you haven't left me any time to complete my procedures. Do you see what I mean? It's a bit, you know, it's not chicken and egg here. It's I cannot sign an opinion on your financial statements if they are not, if they do not reflect an accurate position. And I haven't been given sufficient evidence to support the numbers associated with some of the fixed asset valuations and revaluation reserve. You know, if I haven't, if I don't get that, I can't give you an opinion and therefore we could set any date you like. So perhaps we need to switch it back to the offices and say when are we going to get this information so that we can complete our audit. Chairman, we are request when we don't get this information so we can give to the EY. I mean, my view on, as we've gone around and trying to square the circles that we've got a date now on the 14th of January and that date, if I'm not mistaken, is the date at which EY need to have completed the 18, 19 audit. It's not the date when we need to sign off as an audit committee. So we could set an audit committee date of after that 14th of January date, say the 21st or the 28th. The important thing from the audit committee perspective is if we hit the 14th of January and we have not completed, I want to have an audit committee to understand why we have not completed and what needs to be done to complete. And that is why we're trying to understand the Gant charts are a great start and it's outlining aspiration. But if you can't even agree the beginning point, it's a bit of paper. It's not adding anything. And that's where, as chair of the audit committee, I'm listening to the frustration of the members of the audit committee. We just want to have a date that if we miss, this is now going to be null and void. We need to understand, as an audit committee, what happens beyond that date. Well said, chair. Chair, I'm with your indulgence. If I can ask Mr Maddock, is that feasible please? Yes, I believe so. I might need to ask James what information, because I'm not entirely clear what information you're still waiting for at this stage. No doubt James is. But maybe that's something to talk about after this meeting. James, do you have anything to add on that? Sorry. Just allowing for the delay. I spoke briefly with Mark before this meeting. And my understanding is there are four points. The 1819 revaluation reserve, EY looking at 2.2 million difference. The second point is with the new value surplus assets, which we've submitted a paper and we're going to amend a number on that. So we're very sure. The third item outstanding is a section 106 matter, which the finance team are investigating. And fourth, probably can be quite easily dealt with, was an update on going concern. But as always, this closure relies heavily on the 1819 fixed asset register work being completed. And to speed things up, I can just let the committee know that EY Mark has very kindly agreed to meet up virtually with what effectively is South Cam's capital asset accountant, Tracy Flagg, to try to resolve these final points. The issue seems to be that South Cam's stance is that they are correct and are just having some difficulty in answering the challenges of EY. So that's where we are. These are very small amounts. If you take into consideration that there are no outstanding items on the EY. Portal, there are no outstanding matters. The South Cam staff have, subject to the fixed asset register issues, always prioritise their resources. They have produced client assistance checklist, as Liz mentioned earlier, some 127 items each year. And they run quite an extensive year enclosure checklist. And all of those items, including the clear portal, have only left us with this blessed fixed asset register issue. So in answer to your question is the fixed asset register item that's outstanding. We, that is the finance team, believe that they have submitted quite a comprehensive reply to EY during this week. But it has to be said, this is a very, very complex area, made even more complex by the change from an old manual Excel spreadsheet fixed asset register to quite a sophisticated SIPFA register. And it's really quite time consuming to get both sides to understand the complexities so that the answers to the questions that Janet alluded to earlier can be given so that they can have total confidence in that fixed asset register. I believe that's imminent. And hopefully that can be concluded during this week. But Mark and his team need just a little bit more time to make arrangements for a convenient meeting. I hope that answers your question. Thank you, chair. So a supplementary on to that is that given the outstanding items, is there anything in that list where we are relying on third parties or are there things that can be answered solely by the council themselves? I'm just thinking we've sometimes had to commission reports or especially evaluations and things. We've been relying on other firms. Is everything now in the control of the authority and relying on the authority alone? Should I answer that? If you don't mind, James, I believe that's the case. That is the case, yes. There are no, as far as we're aware, there's no outside of third party information required to finalise those four points. On the basis of what's being said now, we can then move, we've got a drop dead date for the UI of the 14th and we can have an order committee after that date and we can discuss that later in the meeting. UI, for my recollection, need to have a minimum of two weeks with the data to be able to sign off. So we have UI saying they can sign off the 14th as a drop dead date. That means they need to have all the information by the 30th of December, all the information, all the files, all the notes, everything. Given that it's Christmas and holiday, I would not expect officers to be working on the 30th of December. Therefore, there becomes a potential drop dead date of providing all that information and notes, accounts for UI to start that review process to be in a position on the 14th of January to sign off. And that is probably going to be the 21st, 22nd of December. So today is the first, so we've got three weeks to get into a position of providing all the information. And the question then is given it's taken a number of weeks to get to this situation, are we confident? And this is all about us being confident in this gap chart to go forward. Are we confident that we can deliver the information to EY and respond to their queries in the next three weeks to be in their position for EY to complete everything and to get their audit sign, say sign off, like infuses things, that they are confident and can move forward into 1920 by the 14th of January. So we have until the 21st of the 22nd of December as an example. So I'm confident, I mean the meeting between Mark and Tracy presumably is going to be the next day or so. I think we'll have a lot better idea then, but yeah, I'm pretty confident. But I think we probably need to have that meeting just to make sure that everybody else is satisfied. James, does that sound reasonable? Thank you, Peter. Yeah, it does sound sense what it sounds achievable, but I'd qualify that by saying it just depends what continues to come out of the EY investigation and sampling. Of whatever we provide them with. If in an ideal world, if the meeting concludes that everybody understands these complexities and we can plug those numbers in and move forward, no problem. But because it's such a complex area to get a fuller understanding, more information is required. It's going to push the deadline or drop dead date, as you call it, even further into the future. This crystal ball gazing, it's very difficult. I can hear the frustration from the committee and EY and probably you sense that even from myself. But it is so difficult to give you a category commitments and guarantees with so many unknowns. But it is possible and it is practical, but there are going to be a trip up, I guess, or potentially it could be. Counselor Williams. Thank you, chair. I appreciate you allowing me to come back again on this. I think what we can see is that there's a lot of will around the Gant chart. Everyone thinks it's potentially doable, but like I say, we're not going to get guarantees. So if I may make a suggestion chair that we note the progress looking at the recommendation, we note the progress in relation to the 1819 audit and the 1920. We do note the Gant chart, but I would request that the Gant chart at our next meeting returns to us so that we can look at it again. Because then we will know if we've met that first stumbling point or not. I think as much as I'm more than anybody else, and I'm sure everybody here wants some certainty, the reality is that I don't think we're going to get that today. So I don't think I can have confidence in that chart until we've seen the first element completed. So I'd ask that it comes back and we look at it then, chair, if you're in agreement. I think the situation is, as I said earlier, this is an aspiration. It will be affected by the conclusion of 1819 and therefore if we are successful, it won't change. If you're not successful, it will change and have to be brought back to this committee to review and understand the impact of not being successful has on both the resource of the team and the resource of UI. Okay, so thanks to Peter Maddick for his report. We note the progress made in relation to 1819 and 1920, but we request that pending the next month that an updated Gant chart is presented at the next meeting when hopefully we'll be signing off the accounts. But we need to be aware of when that is and the delays that may run. If we can have a five minute comfort break. Is that okay for everybody? Yeah, and then we'll move on to item seven, the extended order update. So we'll just have a five minute break. Thank you. Thank you everybody. If we come back to the committee, please, and we'll move on to item seven, which is the extended order to update. And then may I ask Janet Dawson to present her report. Thank you chair. I think that a number of the items have already been covered in the previous discussion actually in terms of Peter. Sorry, James Carter's description of the four key areas where we're still awaiting information, which we set out in our report for you in the executive summary. So what we try to do here is give you some more detail about the issues that are underpinning the outstanding items and the potential options for closing out at those issues if we can't get satisfaction. So if it would be helpful, just take you through each of those in turn so that you've got a clear view as to what we're waiting for. James described them as minor items. However, the issue for us as auditors is that a number of them could have a material impact on the financial statements and therefore would have an impact on our opinion if they're not resolved. And another couple of those are part of our overall testing that we do for, for example, creditors balances that are in your accounts and having set our testing strategy. If we then cannot complete it, it means that we haven't got assurance over that particular area. So whilst the numbers, the items that we're trying to get evidence to support might not be material, they add to the overall assurance that we get for that particular area of the financial statements. And therefore, without them, we can't then conclude the audit. And that's the significance of the items that we've set out here. We talked about the evaluation reserve already in the meeting today, and there's a balance of 4.2 million in there, which we believe is incorrectly stated. So we need a prior period adjustment to be made to the financial statements to correct that item and to include additional disclosure for the reader of the accounts to understand why that arose. And what the correction has been in the accounts. The item on page 5 also relates to the revaluation reserve and is the 2.2 million difference that James talked about earlier. And we are still seeking to understand how that 2.2 million difference between what's reported in your 1718 accounts and what's now being reported as the opening balance in your 1819 accounts and linked to the new fixed asset register, how that has come about. And we've raised a number of detailed questions, as James said, to try and help officers work through the explanation as to how that has arisen between the old system and the new system and why they are satisfied that the new system position is correct because it's not what was reflected in the previous year's accounts. And that is a material, a material number. So what we've, whilst we've received an enormous amount of information and a number of different reports from officers to try to indicate to us what has caused this difference, what we haven't had is the officers explanation themselves as to how they've worked through that and which reports and which numbers on which reports come together to provide that explanation. And so it's difficult for us as auditors to pick up half a dozen reports and work through them ourselves to piece together the officers high level explanation. What we need is them to do the work to demonstrate it to us and that's been part of the difficulty, part of the hold up. So what we've done is provide an example working paper to help officers set that argument out clearly for us so that we understand which figures they're drawing from where and how that comes to the difference. But without that, it's very difficult to follow. And as James said, it's very complex, but we do need that work to be done within the organisation first. On page six, we talked about the nil value surplus assets and I think I'll pass over to Mark at this point just to explain that one and then the final points on the fixed asset registers. Thank you, Janet. So the nil value surplus assets were reported this back in the September committee. So the council has identified that the council was holding some 259 nil value surplus assets. The council has subsequently done works in September and concluded that 158 of those the council still owns. The rest being disposed of prior to the accounts. The council have got an external valuation on the 158 assets. So surplus assets should be valued as per accounting standards at fair value, which is the highest best use value. But the valuation that's come through from the external value as is an existing use value. And that's because due to the nature of the assets, it's not possible for the council to determine the future development potential, which should be what links it to its highest best use. Therefore, that increases the level of estimation uncertainty and the council need to add a disclosure into their sources of estimation uncertainty note to describe that situation. So the council will update their accounts for the 900,000, which is the base existing use value of those assets, but then we'll need an additional disclosure to link to the fact that that 900,000 has a higher level of estimation uncertainty. On point three, the data transfer part of the work we need to do is obviously test that the transfer of data from the old fixed asset registers has been migrated across completely and accurately into the new fixed asset register. Part of that work is covered as part of the revaluation reserve, for example, but we are just finalising our testing of a sample of 25 items. So that's 25 individual assets to make sure that data has been moved across correctly into new fixed asset register. There's no issues coming out of that at the moment, but that work does just need to be finalised. And then just moving on to the next page, page seven. So once items one, two and three have been concluded on, the council need to update their fixed asset register with all the updated figures and provide reconciliation to how that translates into a new property plant and equipment note for your 2018-19 statement of account. Clearly that's based on having the points one, two and three cleared to make sure that that fixed asset register is a true reflection of the position for 18-19. Do you want me to carry on to the next bit? Do you want to cover the 106 as well? So in addition to the property plants and equipment issues at the bottom of page seven, there are some other outstanding areas too of those. I think we've mentioned or James mentioned already, which is the section 106 balances held in creditors. So back about this time last year, we identified that there was some creditor balances which were developer contributions that looked to have been reversed out of 17-18, then brought back into 18-19. Initially, the council thought that that was a, again, another prior period adjustment for 17-18, but now believe it's just a disclosure issue that we've not received the council's final determination and evidence to support that assertion as yet. So we're still waiting for that information. And going concern is another area where we need to update. So we had an assessment back in July, but clearly time has passed and various announcements have happened, so therefore we need an updated assessment. I'm going concern taking into account anything that's happened in the intervening period so that we can assess or form our opinion on that assessment and the disclosures the council have made in their accounts. Councillor Williams. Thank you, chair. I've got some things in the report. It's just something I want to clarify and what was said first, if I may. In relation to the nil value surplus assets, I appreciate it's difficult by the virtual, so I'm not quite sure if I can clarify what you said. It sort of seemed to imply that you were still waiting for information in relation to valuation of assets, at which point we would then be reliant on a third party. And that's why I'm clarifying it because obviously previously you've been told that we're not reliant on a third party. But equally, you were speaking quite quickly and Mayor said that you'd not needed that. So can I just clarify, are you still waiting on valuations which will be provided by externals? You're not, are you? Are you? No, apologies for that. No, we are not waiting. So the council has had a third party valuation and it's the outcome of that valuation that leads to our outstanding, which is the council need to update their accounts. So we are not, the council is not waiting for any third party evidence to support those surplus assets. My understanding is that it's the methodology that the third party value has used to come up with a 920,000 valuation for the surplus assets. But the accounting standard says you should use best use. Now we haven't used that, so we have to disclose why we didn't. Now my question from that is what is the difference because we can only estimate. But if it is a substantive difference of we've got it valued at 920,000, but if it was at best use it would be 5 million, that's such a range it becomes a material uncertainty. So best to go with what is more reasonable and prudent than a best use value that depends on so many other things, it's unrealistic. But the principle is we've got a valuation from a third party, it's been accepted and agreed and reviewed and signed off by the auditors, but for disclosure purposes we need to disclose that we are not complying with accounting standards in our estimation and uncertainties and notes. That's the principle of it, if I understand it correctly. Thank you Chair, that was my understanding which is why I wanted to clarify that based on the introduction because I thought it wasn't consistent with that. I do have questions on the report but when you're ready Chair, my locator, thank you. So Chair some of these will be for our external auditors and some maybe for Mr Maddox or internally. So first of all on page 5 we have about, this comes under the revaluation reserve. I think we also actually should stress that obviously some of us have got financial backgrounds and what have you, but that some people might think we literally lost £2.2 million worth of cash, that isn't how it is, it's just valuation of property. So we're not talking about actual cash, I think that's important for particularly any members of the public looking at this to understand these are accounting adjustments. But the third to sixth paragraph are quite concerning, I think this is an internal question. We were originally told by the council that all of the historic data since 2007 was on there, then subsequently we said it was 2011 and then it's found out that we were in 1617. So that is concerning obviously Chair, are we definite now on that information and we know when it's for and everything else. And some sort of have we understood how that confusion has arised so that lesson can be learned from that. So I think that's the first question. The other thing on the nil value surplus page six, it says about not having been revalued within the last five years in going forward and perhaps the new software does this for us automatically. Do we have some sort of expiry, valuation expiry dates recorded so that we make sure we keep up with that? Because I think that is important particularly given that we own land in South Cambridgeshire, which in the economy changing and fluxing as it is. So that would be my second question Chair. Third question is in relation to the comments that were made about a referencing system, some bookmarking system or something to enable the external audit to go quicker if perhaps we could have a response on that and have some assurance that that's going to be taken on board and implemented. Two more, I've got chair and then I shall silence myself for a little while. Page six, bottom paragraph about the migrations of data. It says that there were no formal processes or controls put in place by the council and that the external auditors are still to consider the impact. Can we be assured that processes and controls and policy is now in place because I did read that with some alarm. We all know that one of the most dangerous times for data and corruption of data is in migration processes and my understanding is that it came out, it went back in and it came out again. So we've got three potential exposures to that and that is very concerning. We need to ensure that doesn't happen again and particularly with that paragraph in mind chair at least with my last question which is from Ms Dawson on page three. To date we have not issued statutory recommendations on the above but the way that's worded I decide to clarify does that mean that our external auditors are still considering issuing statutory recommendations and if so can we have some assurance that one of the things not being considered potentially is negligence based on that paragraph on page six about the processes and controls because obviously negligence is a very serious thing that we ought to be aware of if they are looking into that chair. So I think that's my questions for now on this report. Thank you. I think there's some responses first from Peter and then we'll go to the external auditors for their response. I'll try to remember the questions. I think the first one was around misunderstandings. So I think there clearly have been some misunderstandings along. I'm confident now that both ourselves and the auditors understand the position that if there were misunderstandings then that is regrettable and clearly there seem to have been so I'll only apologise for that if that's been the case. Sorry, what was the second question? The second question that I believe would be directed to Mr Maddux is about an expiration date for revaluation and valuations whether we're recording that and then the other one that I feel is probably applicable is about the referencing system if that's been pursued and whether there is now formal processes and controls in relation to migration of data. As regards formal processes obviously we now do have formal processes in place internal auditors looking at that as well so we'll seek advice from them because they may well have some recommendations as a result of their exercise so I think that will be quite valuable to hear what they have to say because obviously they're independent from the actual people doing the register so I think that will be quite helpful in any form in making sure all of our processes going forward are robust. As regards the migration of data, I mean the migration itself was carried out back in 2018 we can't find any evidence of the project plan which again is regrettable the self and the capital accountant weren't here at the time anyway but equally we do need to go back and see if we can work out quite why that was the case why we didn't have a plan if indeed we haven't but say we've found no evidence of that. Quite clearly any migration of data needs to have a clear plan, clear testing and sampling of the data just to make sure that that's been accurate so that's something we clearly need to do the other point I think you raised was around valuation timings now certain assets have to be valued every year like our housing stock, like our investment properties other valuations you would revalue as and when there was some evidence or some belief that that value may well have changed since the last year so my view would be on these surface assets for example we would review them every year just to check what's happening in the intermediate period and whether there was any reason to suggest that the value of those assets had changed so my view would be that we would review those every year as part of the final accounts process if it was a heavy thing so the other thing was about the referencing system in the documents that was listed in the introduction by external auditors is that something that's been shared with yourself and potentially looked at so with the working documents they said it was difficult to reference where the cross references Oh between all of the reports I suspect as a result of the meeting between Mark and Tracy that potentially that would be a place to agree a good referencing system because one thing is for certain there's a lot of reports it is quite difficult to follow through and I think if there is a good referencing system it does make it that much easier so I guess Mark would probably have some recommendations along those lines as a result of that meeting so yeah that'd be good to have some good referencing system that makes it that much easier to follow That concludes my internal questions obviously I had ones for externals rather than my list So if the UI can respond to the questions posed by Councilman Sure so I think the question just to recap was about the point on our page the bottom of my letter rather than issuing statutory recommendations at this point so in classic external audit language and I apologise for this I will be considering statutory recommendations until I decide to determine whether I need to issue them or not and actually I'm not able to feth in my discretion in terms of whether or not I am going to issue them at this point so we haven't concluded the audit there are still some as I see it significant issues associated with the fixed asset register and that reconciliation and the information coming from it to be able to satisfy ourselves on the numbers in the accounts and until we've got to a position where we understand that and have identified in particular this 2.2 million and what's causing it I'm not in a position to say whether or not I think that that may lead to some recommendations associated with the way in which that data has been transferred, controlled and managed so I'm leaving it open Councillor Williams but as I said in my report I will in our final report set out very clearly all of our findings and conclusions and any recommendations that we have around making improvements to the control environment and if I think that any of those warrant statutory recommendations then I will signal that to the committee and move to that position I hope that's clear there was one other before we had an IT issue on to our list that with relation to section page 6 section 3 with the processes and controls is that something that AUI are looking at in their assessment and giving a judgement on and I did reference whether you're looking at negligence at all but you did yes apologies so the lack of controls that have been identified as Peter has said in terms of that migration of data we've arrived at that view from a number of our questions and testing in terms of items of data that were on the system or that weren't on the system and how that's been reconciled through so as we've been moving through our work we've identified a number of issues with incomplete data being transferred across and having to be corrected by the officers so again in that overall view that I'm going to take I will then assess whether or not as I say there are recommendations that are significant enough to warrant making a statutory your point on negligence is a very specific word which actually doesn't come into the national audit office code specifically under the use of our special powers so it's not one that is part of my vocabulary what I would need to do is have a look at the significance of the issues that we've identified and determine whether it's a question of making recommendations making statutory recommendations or then moving further on to a report in the public interest or have you but negligence in and of itself is not a criterion within those categories so it's not one that I would bring back to you at this point and say I think you've been negligent as an organisation and not responsible for making that judgement within my role Thank you chair and appreciated and perhaps if we could just clarify ourselves who would be potentially cos obviously that is a significant risk and if it is a risk that feeds on to our risk register and so I would suggest are we in danger of this in the current situation of severely, sincerely home order? I think as has been mentioned earlier in this meeting at the last meeting there will be a thorough review of the fixed asset register and it's implementation processed by Interim Order and I would certainly expect that from Interim Order to review there would then be recommendations I am aware that there are improvements that have happened more recently but we are unfortunately in a historical position of looking back to what happened in 2018 and some of the evidence that may have been in place in 2018 has unfortunately disappeared and cannot be traced so we are lacking certainly control and a control environment from the 2018 activities that are being addressed now and Interim Order will come back and I am sure that the recommendation is to avoid it happening in the future Thank you chair Council I sample Thanks chair So just going back to what needs to happen in the next few weeks on 18-19 the report references two things that are that are currently with the council so under 0.1 at the end of it it talks about a number of detailed questions that the auditors have raised with the council and under 0.4 under S106 we are currently waiting for the council's final determination and evidence to support their conclusion on the point mentioned Is in terms of the actual next steps to completing the audit are those the two issues that you are waiting to hear back from the council on? Do you want to just recap on the key areas? So just moving to 0.1 in the revaluation reserve so the response that we need in terms of those detailed questions for the 2.2 million is probably at this point in time the biggest key issue that we need because that's the one that has been referred to by James about being complex issue that we need to work through and obviously we need to get to a position where we're happy that the 2.2 million difference that the council are proposing as part of the PPA is correct so that's the key issue that we're working through at the moment but in addition to that is the point of conclusion as you rightly say we need the council's determination on the developer contributions the section 106 so we can move forward and conclude on that and conclude where the error lies whether that's 17.18 again or whether it's just disclosure issues rather than a change in your creditors balances but we do also need the update to the going concern assessment if we to conclude in the time frame that we've discussed and I think also important to lay the top of point 4 which is the final version of the fixed asset register and property plant and equipment note that could be a lengthy task for the council clearly I don't know if Peter or James has an opinion on that but pulling together all the adjustments that's been identified over the past I don't know where we are now 16-17 months in regards to PPE pulling all that together into a final fixed asset register translating that into a new property plant and equipment note and all the balances that it affects in the accounts with all the related disclosures is also a key job that the council will have to do and will take a time period for the council to do the council may be in process of doing that as we go along I'm not sure that's probably for Peter or James on to does that answer your question Councillor Sam Yes I think so thanks just I think it's really goes to the question of feasibility of getting from where we are now to where we need to be in three weeks Thank you chair perhaps I should explain to Janet and to Mark I'm not a member of this committee but as chair of the scrutiny and overview committee I'm obviously extremely interested and I wonder if I might pose a question both to Ernst and Young and to and to Peter Maddox Can both of you independently give an assessment of the number of man days that you believe may be required to complete the submission of data to the audit completion please In terms of completing this if it was straight forward if we received the information reconciled and set out clearly I think we would probably take another 20 man days to complete the work because as Mark says we're just completing the final testing at the moment on the 25 items that confirm that we're satisfied with what's in the fixed asset register and then there are the key areas that we've discussed that we're still waiting for information which we will then need to both Mark and I will need to review and we will need to look and check very thoroughly through the restated statement of accounts once we're in a position to receive that so I would suggest it's about another 20 man days to calculate quickly in my head councillor because we do this by we usually calculate by hours but we've used in excess of 400 days already on this audit which is probably twice the amount you would expect for a district council Thank you for that perhaps then I could pose exactly the same question to Peter I might need to ask James about how long it's going to take to update everything I mean James do you have a view on how long it would take to process the adjustments of just thinking 10 man days or what do you think Yes Peter I think we have discussed this briefly in the past and I've tried to give you and Liz a comfort that the total package is in its final state that's the statement of accounts subject to the fixed asset register being updated in terms of I'll just give a brief outline of how this works once we've got an agreed fixed asset register position Tracy Flack will upload that through the SIPFA AMS fixed asset register accounting routines generally that can be done by her online and should take no more than overnight so one working day once that new format is arrived at I can plug that into the statement of accounts by virtue of a rerun trial balance and as Mark mentioned it will affect certain other areas but that will be done automatically through the trial balance run through Tech 1 which is the current accounting program system so I think as we have discussed previously 10 working days is sufficient once we finalised those four outstanding points that EY have outlined earlier I come back on that because obviously that response was fairly highly qualified what I'm really looking for James is an indication of the number of man days that it will take us to complete the submission of the all the data to EY because from my own experience of some years ago receiving an audit report not quite along these lines but with a similar slant to it it actually involved a huge amount of work and I am worried that there is a lot of work to be undertaken in the next three weeks and that is sort of 15 working days but how many man days are actually required to complete the submission in full to EY thank you I'm sorry I don't have any calculations based on man days I can only look forward in terms of working working days someone really needs to understand exactly how many hours, how many man days are required to complete this information to submit to EY within the time period that you are talking about I think one of the questions when EY mentioned 20 man days was how much resource they got to fulfil that 20 man days and it's sufficient to enable them to deliver against the drop dead date of the 14th assuming then that from our side the council is able to work and deliver by say the 20th in the next three weeks the requirements and to your specific question when you raised it I immediately sprung to my mind there's a piece of string because actually in an audit process you get requests, you submit information you get secondary requests nothing's agreed until everything is agreed and so we can sit here today and say it will take 10 working days or 10 man days and we've got two people working on it that's five days things will happen in the next five days that mean that gets pushed further back would be my understanding of all the audits I've ever been in but I would ask Peter for some clarification around whether that is a reasonable view to take I think so, I think probably I need to have a discussion with you James and sort of fairly urgently after this meeting just to try and scope out exactly how long we think it's going to take because perhaps I can call back to the committee by the end of the week just to make sure we're clear on what we need to do and what we need to do it by so I'll catch up with you after the meeting James and we'll have a quick discussion that's okay, that might be the best way to approach this if we can agree on a deadline of the end of this week and I will circulate that information to the committee post receiving it from Peter to the committee I would appreciate if you could circulate it most definitely and I think I just want to clarify the interpretation as I understand it from Councillor Chamberlain is it's not about the subsequent things it's the manpower to just make this initial series if that makes sense and we should know that really in order to evaluate if we've got enough resources or not is my view so if you can look at that and address that I think we all understand that sometimes more is then required but we need some confidence we've got the resources in place to deal with what is in the here and now to be honest on further questions I've got a couple of questions for EY and it comes back to certain things that Councillor Williams raised and it was the issuance of the statutory recommendations if you could clarify what those statutory recommendations could be because my understanding in previous discussions was the statutory recommendations would be to escalate the audit and the management of the audit process from the audit committee to the council the council has in effect had a meeting in October to direct the council to address the issues on the timeframe and delivery of the audit already so if there are any other elements of statutory recommendations I think it will be useful for this audit committee to understand what they are and then you talk at the final bit of that paragraph about if fed reporting under those statutory powers is required so if you could clarify it may be that you can't specify but if you could clarify what further reporting could that be so that we are aware of the impact of the effect that those statutory powers may have a concern that I have is that of course it gets reported in the papers that the council is facing special measures now special measures has a distinct quality to it that an individual understands from thinking that schools are going to be taken over and taken out out of the council now special measures isn't as far as I'm aware what we're talking about it's statutory powers and that isn't the statutory powers of EY or AN other audit company coming in and taking over the finance responsibility for the council but that may be what people interpret it as being so I'd just like clarifications the audit committee can be clear as to what those statutory recommendations could be and what the statutory powers could refer to certainly so the last sentence there is actually talking about statutory powers as in making some statutory recommendations so as I said in my letter in our audit results report we will set out everything that we found and then at that point we will go back around that loop and say is there anything within that report that we think has such significance that it's important that we exercise our statutory powers so I was if you look at the auditor's guidance note number seven which the NAO puts out it sets out very clearly on their website the hierarchy of special powers that the auditors have which start with 14 recommendations to the organisation that then go on to using section 24 schedule 7 of statutory recommendations they then go on to in the same section issuing a public interest report where you feel that a matter has not been disclosed sufficiently for the local taxpayers and in the public to be understood it then goes on to being able to apply to a court to have an item declared illegal an item of expenditure illegal and so there's a range and there are probably one or two others that I haven't mentioned now but they're all set out really in a hierarchy there so my point in making that statement where I say at that stage we will also include whether we need to make further recommendations and if further reporting is required is I will go back to the start of that hierarchy and I will consider whether or not I need to make any statutory recommendations at this point I haven't seen anything further that would lead me to move through that hierarchy any further than that so just to put your minds at rest at the moment it's a question of do I feel that the council needs to pay attention to where we've got to what we've found and is there further action required chair you're completely right but earlier we were talking about actually an escalation process and the overall governance of the closure of the 1819 accounts and I think we've moved significantly on that because we are having very open to discussions about what next needs to be done there's escalation in the audit committee paying close attention and milestones have been put in place to ensure that the process moves forward one of the points though that I discussed with Liz is the value in making recommendations and if we think there's sufficiently significant statutory recommendations is to help the organisation focus on what improvements are required going forward and so the nature of the recommendations that I would be considering would be about do you need to strengthen the resource in your finance function further do you need to ensure that there is adequate financial understanding throughout the organisation and control environment throughout the organisation so that the finance function can extract the information they need quickly to meet their responsibilities around financial reporting and is there still a need for a more formalised structured monitoring process of milestones, governance escalation etc going forward to catch this backlog up so it would be about what can you do to get a really formal structure in and around this process to recover the position in terms of late reporting so those are the types of recommendations that I would be considering I hope that was helpful Thank you Chairman Chairman I think the word special measures is a very specific reason and that no single counciller I would like to think in this council of all parties and then once this council to go into special measures it's an extreme case and I think it would be fair to say that we would all councillers would feel we have failed should we the council do that it's not something anybody wants admittedly we have opposition and sometimes we like to embarrass the opposition and I'm sure they do exactly the same to us which is fine but nobody wants that nobody wants that and everybody wants to work to keep us as far away from those two words as we possibly can it's a bit like the unwritten rule I think the MPs have about talking down the pound I think it would be fair to say that all councillers have the same with regards that this is no way does anybody want to go down that route at all and we look forward to helping EY as much as possible to get all this resolved Perhaps if I can also just in terms of the the cavalry of special measures again it's a bit like we were talking about the use of the word negligence it's not one that features in the regulations that structure the work of the external auditor so we talk about our special powers and the hierarchy of different actions we can take special measures would be something that would be enforced by the department on the organisation and is not within our remit if you see what I mean so that might be a consequence if we were to find something so significant but it's not something that the external auditors themselves enact or inflict on organisations The committee has asked to note the report from external auditor Janet and Mark for their attendance today for explaining things so clearly Thank you very much We now move to agenda item 8 the internal auditor to update report Ask Jonathan Tolley to present his report Thank you very much Good afternoon everyone Thank you Chairman for letting me introduce this update Although I'd like to recognise this is a joint effort across the broader team of the council to prepare this item So we're on page 17 of your agenda packs and the purpose of this document is to provide summary updates to you across topical audit and governance themes We also include some statistics at the end of the document to help provide an overview of work in progress Hopefully the content of the report is fairly clear for you to follow but this is the second report of the style that we've completed so we always welcome feedback on the content and presentation So I'd just like to highlight a couple of points of interest if I may Moving into this section governance risk and control on page 19 You can see that since the last update we've completed two internal audits one of which was reported via the scrutiny and overview committee Both have an assurance level which has improved since our previous reviews they've both improved from limited to reasonable Also on that page we highlight that we also undertake proactive and responsive work to help protect the public purse and we do that through various data matching initiatives and we've just highlighted a couple of those projects in the reports Moving on also in that section we just provide a highlight of some of the upcoming audit work which is happening over the next quarter Moving on to the counter fraud updates which is on page 21 of the reports Tyrone Lutbyn King manager has provided some helpful statistical updates on counter fraud activity and then finally on page 25 under the training and development section you'll see that we've introduced some guidance on primary and fraud prevention and Tara's worked with a number of officers across the council to prepare that guide That follows on the next pages 27 to 44 and we hope that you find that useful Those are the only points that I wanted to cover Chairman Councillor Howell Thank you Chairman Thank you Chairman I just want to ask a couple of questions I did find it very useful and I thank you for the guide for councillors as well a councillor's guide for bribery to bribery, I should say not for bribery to bribery and fraud prevention Thank you very much, I much appreciate it I'm just a question I appreciate it's my new type question but you'll see why I'm asking this particular question on page 23 under interview under caution it is noted there that seven people failed to attend the interviews Is it possible for Mr Tully to go into information on that if he has any specifically what happens when people don't turn up and I have another recommendation depending on what Mr Tully says Chairman Thank you Councillor Howell I'm afraid I cannot answer on that question that comes under the remit of the fraud team I don't know Peter Maddox if you want to pick up a response on that or whether that's something we want to bring go away and bring back to the committee Thank you Jonathan I think I'd probably best go away and speak to my fraud manager and see what she has to say on that and provide a response if that's okay Chairman thank you very much indeed for that I only ask that specifically because if people don't turn up I would like the portfolio sorry the lead member for finance and the lead member for housing or anyone else that this might be relevant to if they are in seat of benefits and they don't turn up for an interview we should look at withholding those benefits until that interview appears but I appreciate Chairman that's a very very specific clause to do with different portfolios just like the portfolio for finance sorry the lead member for finance to consider that when he is looking at things in the future Thank you Chairman Councillor Williams Thank you chair and just for ambiguity as well what's often said about councillers I did wonder if it's a counciller's guide to detect bribery in fraud prevention it almost would be implied it's a guide to help us do it which obviously I would expect a counciller in the country to be actively doing right now so maybe a maybe a change of name and potentially a change of suit actually on the photograph given that onto more serious matters on page 34 this is one of interest it reads you are responsible for ensuring that your authority adequately manages its risks and that local residents receive value for money and I'm just wondering how you judge that because value for money is this an interpretation purely on a financial basis because I think it's quite value for money is quite a subjective thing you know what one person puts strong emphasis on another wouldn't and we obviously have a value for money strategy so I'm just wondering which mark would you advise for that or on this basis are we simply sort of cost effectiveness so as regards the risk of fraud we're doing quite a lot of work across the authority identifying the key risk areas and as part of that we'll be trying to put a value on each detection of fraud and each possible saving than that might make we've still got some way to go we're going to be doing some benchmarking with other authorities as well to see what they're doing I think it's fair to say that the fraud team is evolving the team was set up last year and obviously with the pandemic things have been quite slow and it's been quite difficult to carry out fraud investigations and prosecutions so we're still working things up at this stage but the intention is to do some benchmarking to complete the fraud risk assessment so that we make sure that we target the right areas to look at in a bit more detail so there's quite a bit of work going on and part of that process we'll be trying to assess the sort of financial benefits of doing what we're doing if you see what I mean That's Williams Thank you so just as an example that the reason I ask it is I'm going to give an example of planning enforcement because it's somewhere that we have this sort of balancing act and often what's referred to as the expedient, is it expedient to take action you know on a balance of harm even though it perhaps has broken a rule is it expedient to pursue it or not I have to say that when it comes to such matters fraud prevention and detection expediency you could very easy go well its x amount is going to cost us more to pursue it and it sort of gets wrote off and justified for myself fraud is very much something that regardless of how much it is it's a it's a disservice to residents it's a principal matter so I would put high value on us demonstrating that we will not accept that and to be very tough on that which might not always fit with the expedient and that value for money so I suppose is it a conversation that chair we need to have as members or is it something that officers will define as to where that's pitched because if somebody is fortunately taking tax payers money then they need to know and should be pursued regardless of its value monetary value I think you make a very good point there a section 151 officer I have a responsibility to say to make sure that council assets are maintained to safeguard those assets and the proper controls and I tend to agree I mean there's a public body we should do everything we possibly can to put into fraud prevention fraud detection and if fraud is found to pursue that I can say the fraud risk assessment will identify those areas that we need to to make that on but I agree I'm very clear that we do need to pursue fraud where it's found potentially it could be a bit of a cost to the council in many cases it's not significant we have pursued frauds and we have put money into those investigations even where potentially there's not a lot of money to be made from pursuing that so I think there is a public duty on the authority to pursue fraud and do everything we can to make sure the public purse is protected that is certainly my intention and I believe that there's intention that we pursue that going forward Thank you chair it acts as a deterrent as well as much as anything else and that's why I mentioned about the money because you're never going to actually reliably quantify the deterrent basis but it's definitely it's definitely a principled matter I'll look towards councillor Chamberlain and say as you are chair of the overview committee that maybe you've benefitted to this audit committee with regards to the report that you received on the planning performance No I think I think we actually felt that significant improvement had been made and we really asked that that should continue and that they would come back to us in another six months with a further update just to let us know how things were going but I think there was a degree of confidence that things had improved quite significantly over the over the last quarter that we considered Any further questions from the committee no further questions so the committee has asked to note the report from internal audit and I thank Jonathan for his attendance and presentation and we will move on to agenda item nine which outlines the mid-year treasury management report May I ask Peter Muddock to present this report Thank you So as part of our treasury management strategy we report to audit and governance committee twice a year in relation to that the out turn and then the mid-year position so this report is looking at the first six months of this financial year so there's a number of tables in the report that look at what money we've got invested and where and also tables around the amount of borrowing that we have and again this is all that at the 30th of September just gone there's also attached a little bit of commentary from our treasury advisers around the general context within which is the set and the general economic conditions so there's any questions on anything particular in that report Please do Councillor Williams Thank you chair I think this follows on very much from our conversations at the last audit meeting and I thank officers and Mr Mellott for the report particularly the section on liquidity. I'm just looking at page 51 on the maturity structure of the borrowing just noting that a substantial figures are repayable on a very short term basis and this does get raised sort of in various points I'm just wondering given the changes as well what position we're at because we are getting into the latter end of the year what our refinancing plans are given it is multiple millions that we're going to either have to repay back or refinance my understanding but I would like clarification is that we'll be looking to refinance these loans and if we are doing so on a short or long term basis on what we're looking to do if not repaying I think there may be supplementaries based on the answer chair but I'll leave it there for the moment thank you So yes we have seen some in-interest rates we had a meeting with our Treasury advisers a couple of weeks ago their advice to us is for the moment that we should still carry on with our current strategy then borrowing on a short term basis very long term rates are coming down but we're talking about 15 years plus so the sort of longer term that we will be looking at and the rates are still significantly higher and short so I think this is something we're going to need to keep under quite a close review over the next sort of six months to a year possibly but we've got another meeting with our advisers straight after Christmas to again look at this but certainly at the moment the strategy isn't refinanced the loans that we have with short term borrowing for the moment possibly up to three years we will be looking potentially to, from what you said to refinance that so we're not repaying that in that loan period so we've got a strategy where we're going to be looking to keep refinancing I only say that because I appreciate and understand with the interest rates how they are but on that basis there is an element of risk substantial risk potentially and I'm just wondering how we're balancing and offsetting that because it's something that you know on for seeing things do happen I mean and later items and what have you referring to the reliance on Covid vaccines but now we've got a new variant I think actually it does fall in this appendix B chair on page 57 so that in itself even though this meeting was in September it references so obviously has taken into consideration of the Covid vaccine roll out and the impacts that would have we have a new variant now so when that gets reviewed that's we all hope that new variant does not have consequence I should emphasise but there are so many new variants in this current climate that surely that increases the risk of this strategy and I'm wondering whether that's something chair that we should be very mindful of I think you're right I mean you know there is significant risk going forward I think that's why we're going to be having probably bi-monthly meetings with our Treasury advisors to keep things under review our medium term financial strategies it currently stands it does assume that we will move to longer term borrowing in next financial year at the moment we'll be reviewing that position we will move that on another year but that will be based on advice that we get from our Treasury advice so I think that's something we need to keep under review I'm loath to go longer term and the difference in cost between the two is so significant but equally it's so difficult to judge at what time at what time we amend that strategy and I think that's very important that we have regular contact with our Treasury advisors because they do well there is close to the ground and they have better knowledge on this than us but as of today at the moment they're saying sit tight run with short term and we're with you I seem to recall from an earlier year that there becomes a point in the last fiscal quarter so January, February, March where the liquidity and availability is difficult in the marketplace do we have any risk of loans expiring in the next quarter that we may face not being able to roll over so what we've been doing is we've been looking ahead and trying to plan ahead when we need to refinance so my colleague that does this arranges for if it looks like we need to refinance in February or if it looks like we need new loans in February for example we will set those up will it advance so that we have the guarantee that that money will be available at a guaranteed rate so that's something that we've been doing for the current borrowing so I'm due to catch up with him later this week to see where we are and we can set loans up or up for three months hence but again the difficulty there is knowing exactly how much you need and when you need it so it's a bit of a balancing act between looking at when you need the money and our cash flow prediction suggests we are going to need to borrow some additional money so I need to check when it is but I believe it's February and I believe that we are going through the process of setting up some of those loans at this point so that we know that we get the money and we have certainty on the rate that we are getting at least for the two three-year period at that moment Councillor Williams Can I just clarify on page 52 paragraph 38 it feeds on chair after your question about the 90 million of short term loans to be repaid and the second half of this financial year which we are now in it's forecast that 40 million in new short term loans will be required to externalise our internal borrowing I take it that the 40 million includes the refinancing of the 19 or is that additional on top page 52 paragraph 38 I just wonder if the 40 million is inclusive of the 19 or if that's on top because I think that might help address chair so we are looking at we are going to need to borrow as a council 40 million pound in the next few months essentially We have been reviewing this position in the sense that the report has been I don't know let me double check to be absolutely certain that's what we are saying in the report that you circulate could you provide those figures please I think if you can when you provide the updates on the other one if you can provide an update on what the situation is it's very clear what to roll over, what's new the value that's required to be financed in the final quarter any further questions in the committee so the committee has asked to note the report and we will move on to agenda item 10 which is the risk management report which outlines the current processes for managing risk for the local authority and proposals to further improve risk management across the council and Ainsworth to present her report thank you very much chair and thank you for the opportunity to present this report to you today so what we've presented to committee today is the high level strategic risk risk register for the council so these are the risks that are corporate that are strategic that would have an impact across the organisation and for our communities and also that if that risk if that action occurred it would be significant it would have significant implications if that risk is not managed properly so these are the risks that you have in front of you there are obviously many other risks for the council risks that sit in particular services or around projects for example those risks are less strategic and the impact of those would be less significant if again if they were not managed properly so this is very much that high level strategic risk register that you have in front of you as mentioned in the report we have a system called for risk and each risk owner is responsible for updating their risk and inputting risks and as I say keeping them regularly updated as a risk may develop as stated in the report as well there are a couple of things that we are suggesting that we do over the next few weeks and months to continue to improve how we address risks and how we manage risks across the organisation and I just wanted to bring these to committee's attention I'd be grateful for any comments on these so one is around the option to use the system or fully around project risks currently the project risks sit within the individual projects and they're managed by the senior responsible officer and the project and the program manager for those projects and I feel that we could do more to include those projects within the for risk system and therefore create a better understanding of how some of the interdependencies might work across those corporate risks for the council and then some of those individual project risks as well we're also recommending that the risk register comes to committee twice a year and I would welcome any suggestions or comments on the way that the current risk register is presented or indeed if there are any additional risks or aspects to the risk register that you would like us to bring to you for future meetings and the final recommendation that I'm making is around how we ensure that the risks are kept at a very very high level that we have a very high profile around our risks across the organisation so having them in a range of different meetings where we're talking with them where there's quite a lot of officers and colleagues there so again we can look at those interdependencies and we can also make sure that the lessons we've learned in the pandemic where we've managed risks I think incredibly well as an organisation and we've been very dynamic and we've responded to those risks extremely quickly making sure that we align that with the way that we use the system I think is something that we can continue to improve my apologies members I think I lost you there on the system my apologies can I just check can everybody hear me again now yep we can hear you it's fine sorry about that so that was all I wanted to present chair happy to take any questions all I would say is there may be some questions that might be specific to some of the risks or some of the services included in the risk register if that's the case if we could take those questions away please and have a conversation with the risk owners or indeed the head of service and be able to provide a written and detailed response and back to committee if there are any questions of that nature thank you chair and apologies again for that interruption councillor howell thank you chairman thank you chairman chairman I'm just going to say very quickly on one and then a general question if you don't mind with regards to failure to meet targets for building new affordable housing and failing to spend a right to buy receipts I think that's excellent what's been done there and I just want to say well done on that one I won't ask any more questions it's a topic that members know I often speak about so I'm very pleased to see that just a general question really and this is because I run a couple of risk registers myself in another capacity one of the biggest risks we've found is a single point of failure if I use that as a very specific term and I can see a nod in your head so can I just ask have we identified single points of failure within the organisation and are we doing something to address that and I appreciate sometimes it's very difficult to address that because the very nature of the subject area that they are specialising thank you chairman thank you yes if I can answer that question yes we have identified a number of single points of failure that there may be across the council or indeed in specific projects can I take that away and provide a more detailed response on where we've identified those and the way that we are looking to mitigate and address those I'm more than happy with that chairman but it's the fact that they've been identified and there's a plan of action is what I was more interested in but yes I'd be quite happy for that as well thank you chairman yes thank you chair no I was as a committee to be aware there's been a move in the commercial sector on the back of the work being done by the task force for climate change related financial disclosure and I note that the UK government has confirmed that large UK registered companies will have to disclose climate related financial data meaning effectively risk from April 2022 and given that we are quite a large organisation maybe we're not under a statutory organisation, a statutory obligation to look at that as a specific task but I wonder whether that is somehow coming down the road in some type of form and we should be ahead of the curve on that thank you very happy to take that away and have a look at that in terms of how that's appearing or not appearing at the moment in the risk register and whether that is something that we need to add councillor Williams thank you chair just a few points on I think I would be in agreeance with the words around the order of accounts on page 68 and not wishing to rerun any of that but yeah I think hopefully we'll get to a point where we can change the colour on that and make it down to yellow but for now I think it is in its appropriate place on page 69 I do think that this may already be included so I'm just seeking some clarification because it says about careful ongoing monitoring of housing supply by the five year land supply officer but not just looking at housing supply do we also look at inspectorate decisions and appeals and I'm just thinking in particular we obviously there's the appeal at Sourston, Mill Lane Sourston where the land supply is being challenged I'm just wondering whether we look at trends in that as well around how inspectors are taking Covid into consideration or anything like that because obviously it is a the planning inspector in themselves as I think the council knows to a severe cost is a risk unto themselves to the council and just wondering if that's something that we are looking at and I would say on page 70 insufficient people resources and skills I'm wondering whether whether really that should be should be rare so I'd be interested to know more details about how we've come to that conclusion just because myself, Councillor Howell and indeed Councillor Owens we sit on staff in the employment committee so we know about the high dependency we have on agency staff and also that we have had service interruptions on waste collections and things due to insufficient drivers so I'm just wondering and I'm not saying we're not doing lots of things but it does seem in that climate and while residents are experiencing that odd that the risk is quite low the governance of shared services I mean I think that is clearly a risk and I know scrutiny is doing a lot of work on that I think I think we possibly need to do more to sort of try and communicate through the council and maybe to this committee as well because I know there's been an awful lot of work done by scrutiny and some members sit on both but some don't and just do understand it says the court is shared services, member lead meetings and things like that if there's documentation on minutes or something that can help councillors make that accessible to them I think would be very helpful chair I think that's me done Thanks chair, yes I think in terms of how this is presented it might be helpful to be able to see the figures of likelihood and impact that go into creating the the total risk that's been risk rating that's presented in the in the report the other the other thing is I wonder whether there are in terms of learnings from this what you take away from it just making sure that the broad themes that come out from this aren't missed so to me it seems as though process change is a big issue and I talked about that with respect to some of the changes in the processes around the creation of accounts IT is clearly an ongoing one and I think thinking about how we as a council are able to adapt and manage successfully changes in process across the board I think would be a useful an example of a useful theme to reflect on and return to and then I think my final point is really around it's just a very specific one I don't want to spend too long on it but on the audit of accounts I think in terms of the ongoing issues and the risk control mitigations I think we perhaps ought to think about including something there about the the upcoming process for identifying a new auditor through the PSAA and the need for the council to assert itself as far as possible in that contract as to the service that we would expect from the future auditor Thank you Are you happy chair for me to respond to those questions? Yes Thank you So in terms of the first question around the risk around inspector appeals and decisions I'd need to go back into the system and have a look whether that is captured anywhere else where but I'm very very happy to do that and to provide a response around that I think it's an excellent point and if it isn't captured fully then we need to have a look at adding that into the into the risk register In terms of the point around resources for for people essentially insufficient people resources and skills the reason that that's yellow is because that final column is about ongoing or actions that we will be taking right now over the next few weeks and months and in talking with the the risk owner with Jeff memory we came to the view that as we continue to engage with those actions as we continue to deliver them then we would be reducing the risk to the level that it's currently recorded in the risk register I appreciate that that will probably always be some views and some thinking around some of the scoring levels with risk but we did feel that once those actions have been put in place that they would be effective in helping to reduce the risk In terms of governance of shared services if committee is happy I would like to pick that up with the lead member for shared services and have that conversation with them and the figures that go in in terms of how that makes up the risk yes very happy to explain that provide more detail around that in a future report same with the broad themes thank you I think that is an excellent suggestion and very happy to again pull those out into a covering report so that it would be more easy for committee members to see where some of those overarching issues were occurring in terms of the strategic risk register and in terms of order and perhaps adding that risk into the risk register could I just ask Peter Maddock I'm presuming Peter we would be happy with that just want to check given that Peter is in the meeting yes of course that's fine thank you then we will do that we will make sure that that is added to the strategic risk register thank you any further questions from the committee so the committee has asked to note the report the presentation report we moved to agenda 11 which is the matters of topical interest it wouldn't be an order at meeting chair if I didn't mention the toolkit thank you for sending around what you did and I've looked through it I genuinely do think especially with what's gone on while I know I may get grown by some by creating homework for ourselves I do think it's equally important that we make sure we equip ourselves in the most appropriate way and so I would like to see I knew we were going to explore costs and things like that but I really would like to see us now we've seen what it can do to take that forward and I think that would be something that we can do to help give assurance to people that we're taking the matter seriously and every day is a school day it's a reminder for me to follow up with EY I did contact EY and asked them for information around the toolkit they provided it I did ask for a timetable as to when it could be possible to attend the toolkit and presentation and get a real thinking around it but with the audit I haven't had a response but I will take this from the poll in this meeting and follow up and see if I can get some sort of timetable together I appreciate that I believe that Rory would like to come in and raise something as well Thank you chair very briefly I just wanted to let the committee know and would ask Patrick to record this in the minutes that there's been no use of RIPA powers in the last quarter and since this committee last met I'm guessing that there aren't going to be any questions as the powers haven't been used but I'm happy to take any if there are That's fine Rory there's no questions from the committee thank you for providing the update No further topical interest then as we discussed earlier in the meeting there's a date of the next meeting now the gender says Tuesday 29 March but obviously we know we want to meet in January so given the discussions that occurred with internal and external auditors around deadlines requirements to meet deadlines and we have a proposed drop dead date of the 14th of January for members which date would you like to Chairman with your permission can we ask if Patrick had put out a doodle problem and we can sort it out that way I'll do it that way if people haven't got their agendas to hand Chair I'd just say I think it's going to be an important meeting that one will be in relief that it's across the line or we're really going to have to answer some serious questions so it's important that we have good attendance for that meeting I think we should be as close to the 14th as possible obviously not before so if we can all of us try and make sure we can get in I wouldn't wish to delay it too much if you're in agreement Chair The 14th is the Friday so if we request a doodle poll to be sent out for I would say to allow a few days for the Wednesday Thursday or the Friday so 19th to 20th or 21st and then we can see where that makes the most I agree with that Chair Is that okay? So we will send out a doodle poll and then commit to a date when hopefully we will be signing off the accounts or getting a response as to what's happened in the past month I thank everybody for their attendance at the meeting and I look forward to wishing you a happy Christmas Thank you Chairman, thank you very much Thank you everybody