Loading
The minutes are published. No summary has been written yet.
Apologies for absence were received from committee member and Chair Lynne Hamilton, Cabinet members County Councillors Jake Berriman and Jackie Charlton, and officers Clive Pinney, Dr Richard Jones and John Forsey.
No declarations of interest were made by members in relation to the items on the agenda.
Minutes of the 23rd of May 2025 and the 20th of June 2025 were presented to the committee for approval. Comments were raised regarding the minutes of the 20th of June 2025: Concerns raised Response Received Audit Wales Officer raised a point of accuracy regarding the Corporate Governance Review discussed under matters arising. While the minutes correctly stated that committee members would be interviewed as part of the evidence gathering, they inaccurately suggested that the wider membership would be consulted via a focus group. It was asked the minutes of the previous meeting be amended. It was agreed to amend the minutes accordingly. The Head of Finance provided an update on some actions from the meeting. • Any monies owed to the council were being invoiced and pursued through the debt recovery process. • Work was ongoing to ensure that the committee received more detailed recommendations in future reports. The Committee was reminded of the need to schedule the Whistleblowing Annual Report and the Whistleblowing Policy. It was agreed this would be arranged. ACTION The Chair noted an action on page 26 regarding a meeting between the Monitoring Officer and the Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee to discuss planning assurances following adverse press coverage. The Director of Corporate Services reported that no specific concerns had been raised or were being actively pursued. Audit Wales confirmed that while they had received correspondence from a Senedd Member, they had not committed to a further review at this time. However, the matter would be considered as part of the broader Corporate Governance Review scheduled to report in October 2025. When would work on the Governance Review begin? The Terms of Reference had been finalised and the review would be delivered over the next couple of months, scheduled to report in October 2025.
Background Presented by Audit Wales Officer: • Audit Wales conducted a review of the council’s scrutiny arrangements during late 2024–25. • The review aimed to assess whether the council’s arrangements supported effective scrutiny and built upon previous reviews conducted in 2018 and 2021. • Rather than focusing solely on past recommendations, this review took a broader view of the scrutiny function to provide more impactful insights. Key Findings: • A lack of shared understanding among officers and members regarding the purpose and value of scrutiny was found to be undermining its effectiveness. • This issue was considered foundational, with other weaknesses flowing from it. Recommendation 1: Establish a collective understanding of the scrutiny function’s strategic value and purpose. Recommendation 2: Develop Mechanisms to Evaluate Scrutiny’s Effectiveness and Value for Money. Corporate Response presented by the Head of Business Intelligence and Governance • Thanked Audit Wales and acknowledged the importance of strengthening the council’s scrutiny function. • Reaffirmed commitment to delivering meaningful improvements. • Noted the organisation’s response was available on pages 53–58 of the agenda pack. • Clarified that references to "officers" in the report included all officers attending and engaging in scrutiny. • In response to Recommendation 1: • Held collaborative workshops with councillors, senior leaders, and managers to review the scrutiny function’s legislative and constitutional role. • Embedded clarity of purpose into key councillor resources, including induction and training materials. • Planned to develop a targeted training programme—supported by the WLGA—focused on scrutiny skills such as effective questioning and impact evaluation. • Improved transparency and accountability by: • Ensuring all reports to scrutiny were written. • Enforcing submission deadlines. • Prohibiting late items and verbal updates. • In response to Recommendation 2: • Introduced robust mechanisms to evaluate scrutiny’s value for money. • Enhanced self-assessment processes with annual impact reviews to inform continuous improvement. • Ensured the scrutiny function remained purposeful, evidence-based, and aligned with corporate priorities and strategic risks. Corporate Response presented by the Director of Corporate Services: • The Chairs of the Committees had been heavily involved in shaping the appropriate response. • The Director of Corporate Services noted that the Council’s focus had been on pre-decision scrutiny, and there had been active consideration of how scrutiny could engage earlier in the process, rather than following the Cabinet’s programme. She highlighted ongoing efforts to improve impact assessment, with strengthened pre-decision analysis and a growing emphasis on post-implementation review to ensure outcomes aligned with expectations. Where necessary, adjustments would be made to improve effectiveness. These discussions were already underway, and enhancing scrutiny would require collaboration across the whole organisation. Concerns raised by Committee Response from Officers How many levels of questioning were there? Questions asked were based on Audit criteria, and there were no other levels for this review. Did Audit Wales attend any scrutiny meetings during the review? Audit Wales observed meetings through recordings. Why were only three scrutiny committees reviewed and not others like Finance Panel or Governance and Audit Committee? The review focused specifically on scrutiny committees. Would the two recommendations and management response address all the weaknesses identified? The decision to make two broad recommendations was deliberate, to create overarching corporate change. How could the council evaluate the value for money of scrutiny? It was for the council to determine appropriate evaluation methods and Audit Wales recommended developing mechanisms to do so. Was there an opportunity for officer and member training, and learning from other local authorities? The Director of Corporate Services explained that they had been looking at the agendas and Work Programmes for other Local Authorities to undertake learning. Was there benchmarking data comparing Powys to other Welsh authorities? Such data was not available due to the unique structures and practices of each local authority. Scrutiny Reviews for other local authorities were available on the Audit Wales Website. Losing experienced staff members was a great challenge for the scrutiny function. Were legacy documents created for new members of staff? It was agreed that a loss of knowledge was clear. However, this was for the corporate response to focus on. Had training gaps been found throughout the organisation? That was work for the council. The review referred to ‘the council’, as the training was required by the whole council, and not any particular group, such as officers or members. Could AI be used to support scrutiny? Audit Wales did not have a view on this. But acknowledged that it was up to the Council to decide whether the use of AI was beneficial in various circumstances. The Head of Business Intelligence and Governance confirmed that AI tools were already being used to capture minutes and action points, and further use would be explored. The council committed to learning from other authorities and using AI and digital tools to support scrutiny administration and impact tracking. Councillors expressed concern about the dominance of pre-decision scrutiny and the lack of post-decision review. The Director of Corporate Services answered that the service was hoping to learn how they could be more effective, e.g. not only follow the cabinet work programme, and also review the impacts post implementation. The volume of work and the loss of experienced scrutiny members and officers were seen as contributing factors to the current challenges. Officers confirmed that the council was working with the WLGA to develop a targeted training programme and that standard operating procedures were in place to ensure consistency despite staff turnover.
Background Presented by Audit Wales Officer: • The review formed part of a national thematic review conducted across all 22 Welsh councils. • The focus was on the corporate commissioning arrangements—the decision-making processes used to determine how services were delivered (e.g., whether to make, buy, start, or stop a service). • The review did not cover procurement or contract management. • Two commissioned services were selected as case studies to test the effectiveness of the council’s corporate arrangements. • The focus of the review was to understand the extent to which the Council’s corporate arrangements supported and guided services in commissioning decisions. • To provide assurance that decisions on service delivery options consistently considered a minimum range of value-for-money factors. Recommendations from Audit Wales: • Establish a corporate commissioning framework that sets out expectations and processes for all services. • Monitor compliance with the framework and ensure consistent application across the organisation. • Review and evaluate the effectiveness of both individual commissioning decisions and the framework itself. Council’s Response Presented by the Professional Lead Procurement and Commercial Services and the Director of Corporate Services: • A new Corporate Commissioning Framework would be developed and implemented by March 2026. • The framework would: • Define consistent processes for all services. • Be overseen by the Commercial Performance and Risk Board, which would monitor compliance and report quarterly to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT). • Include mechanisms for reviewing effectiveness of both individual projects and the framework as a whole. • Contract management training had already been rolled out across the council to improve skills and consistency. • The council acknowledged that while some services were already applying good practice, the absence of a corporate framework meant there was no assurance of consistency. • The Director of Corporate Services supported the comments and reflected on points raised in the report. • It was noted that the organisation lacked a current, comprehensive framework and guidance for commissioning. While services—particularly those reviewed—were broadly undertaking expected steps, the absence of a clear and consistent framework was an issue. • Existing guidance had been in place for some time and required review and refresh to ensure it remained fit for purpose. Concerns raised by Committee Response from Officers Was the Commercial Board a new Board? It was 18 months old. The original purpose of the board was to address commercial risks emerging from the Ukraine conflict. Its remit was later expanded to become the Commercial Performance and Risk Board, focusing on commercial planning. It reviewed aspects across the commercial lifecycle, including improvements in contract management and broader commercial risk management beyond those linked to the Ukraine conflict. How would the council ensure the new framework supported innovation and partnership working? Officers confirmed the framework would be designed to support innovative delivery models and collaborative approaches, including with voluntary and health sector partners. What steps were being taken to align commissioning with integrated business planning? The Director of Corporate Services explained that the framework would be embedded into the council’s five-year integrated business and financial planning process. Noting that paragraphs 15 and 18 highlighted the lack of proper arrangements to consistently secure value for money. Why was the management response delayed until March 2026? The Director of Corporate Services offered assurance that there was value for money in the Council’s commissioning activities. Options appraisals and cost assessments, including whole-life costing, were already undertaken, however these practices were not explicitly embedded in the corporate framework, leading to inconsistent application. Formalising these processes and evaluating commissioning activity against them would strengthen assurance. Why was the implementation timeline so long given the urgency of the issues? The Director of Corporate Services stated that the timeline allowed for phased implementation, training, and cultural change. It was emphasised that many good practices were already in place locally, even if not corporately mandated. Was a follow up on this report planned? Audit Wales Officer answered that while there were no immediate plans, common themes across Wales might be collated and reported nationally in future. The implementation of recommendations would continue to be monitored locally through regular risk assessments with the Council. Would the Commercial Board be reviewed to ensure it remained fit for purpose? It was confirmed that the board’s role and structure were under review to ensure alignment with the new framework and evolving organisational needs. Members emphasised the importance of future-proofing the framework to support the council’s Sustainable Powys programme and ensure alignment with long-term strategic goals. Officers acknowledged the need for scrutiny to play a role in evaluating commissioning decisions and ensuring all options were considered.
Background Presented by SWAP Assistant Director: • SWAP presented its Annual Internal Audit Opinion for the financial year 2024–25, as required under the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards. • The opinion provided an independent assessment of the council’s governance, risk management, and internal control systems. • The overall assurance rating for Powys County Council was reasonable, meaning that systems were generally sound, with some areas for improvement. • At the time of reporting, 95% of actions had been implemented, with only 5% outstanding. • No material risks were identified where management refused to take mitigating action. • All audit work complied with the International Professional Practices Framework and the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards. • SWAP was externally assessed in December 2024 and confirmed to be fully compliant with all standards. Concerns raised by Committee Response from Officers Was there a systemic issue behind the negative feedback? SWAP clarified that no systemic issues were identified. Most negative responses were due to form errors or misunderstandings. Were positive feedback responses ever validated to ensure accuracy? Positive responses were not routinely validated.
Background Presented by SWAP Officer: • A total of £2.2 million in overtime was paid during the review period. • The council lacked a single, unified overtime policy. Existing guidance was fragmented and inconsistently applied. • Pre-approval processes for overtime were found to be informal and poorly documented. • Senior management oversight was limited, particularly in monitoring high-value payments and identifying trends. • A number of employees received substantial overtime payments, with five individuals earning over £20k in overtime alone. This raised concerns about staffing pressures, skills shortages, and employee wellbeing. • 1% of the annual payroll represented an acceptable level. Management Response from the Head of People: • All overtime payments were authorised through the Trent system before being paid, with management providing assurance at that stage. • However, pre-approval before overtime was worked was not consistently, recognising this applied to staff working under flexi. • A new HR dashboard would be introduced by September 2025, with full functionality by December to allow real-time monitoring of overtime by managers and Heads of Service. • Workforce planning would incorporate overtime data to help identify structural gaps, skills shortages, and areas of over-reliance on specific staff. • The council recognised that 1% of payroll spent on overtime was within acceptable norms, but the distribution and concentration of overtime among a small number of staff was a concern. Concerns raised by Committee Response from Officers The service area most affected was highways and transport. It was noted that a significant proportion of the overtime in that area was recharged output, and therefore not a direct cost to the Council. How was overtime budgeted for? A level of flexibility was built into the operating model. This included planned use of overtime, temporary, and fixed-term contracts. Such flexibility was necessary for the organisation to adapt to changing demand. Was a skills shortage contributing to high overtime? Yes. Officers confirmed that skills shortages in key areas (e.g. highways, technical services) were a contributing factor. The committee strongly supported a follow-up study to assess the long-term impact, wider issues and effectiveness of the proposed actions. Officers agreed to consider this. Why was the lack of effective controls not rated as a Priority 1 issue? SWAP explained that while controls were weak, all payments were still authorised post-factum, which mitigated the risk to some extent. Members expressed concern that the public perception of high overtime payments could damage trust, especially if not transparently addressed. Members urged the responsible officers to begin working on the actions in the report as a matter of urgency. The Head of People assured the committee that the figures in the report were not unusual for large organisations. Reassurance was offered that no overtime payments could be paid unless authorised and a report was available which detailed the reasoning for the overtime worked. SWAP had referred the matter to Internal Fraud Team who would be investigating. Would the Counter Fraud Team complete their review by the end of July 2025? And if so, please could the findings be presented to Governance and Audit Committee? ACTION Assurance was given that the work was expected to be completed by the end of July 2025.
Background presented by the Head of Business Intelligence and Governance: • The draft Annual Governance Statement (AGS) was introduced, which reviewed Powys County Council’s governance arrangements for the 2024–25 financial year. The AGS was aligned with CIPFA and SOLACE best practices and reviewed alongside the Statement of Accounts. It concluded with a reasonable assurance rating, indicating that governance, risk management, and internal controls were generally sound, though some areas required improvement. • Progress was reported against nine improvement actions from the previous year (p.132). • A comprehensive governance framework (pp.157–332) underpinned the assurance ratings. • Principles D and E were downgraded from “substantial” to “reasonable”. • The AGS included summaries of internal and external audit work (pp.143–146). • Planned improvement actions for the coming year were outlined (p.147). • The AGS would be submitted to Cabinet on 29 July and formally approved in the autumn following Audit Wales’ review. • The AGS was supported by a robust governance framework maintained across the organisation. While improvements had been made, some fell outside the 2024–25 reporting period and would be reflected in the next AGS. Concerns raised by Committee Response from Officers Why were some assurance ratings without supporting statistics? The Director of Corporate Services explained that this was a snapshot in time, and renewal dates could affect the data presented, but it was expected that percentages were higher. Were staff confident in using grievance and whistleblowing policies? Communication played a key role in helping staff understand their responsibilities. Heads of service reviewed staff survey results, identified concerns within their departments, and held discussions to encourage engagement. They then took appropriate action based on the feedback received. How were internal audit findings weighted into the AGS? The Head of Business Intelligence and Governance confirmed that internal audit reports were factored into the assurance ratings, but the two most recent audits (e.g. on overtime and commissioning) were received after year-end and would be reflected in the next AGS. The Director of Corporate Services added that Principle F covered managing risk and performance through robust internal controls and strong financial management. It drew on various aspects across the Council. The scoring reflected a broad assessment, supported by the available evidence. Although some reports had been received in the current year and would be considered in future assessments, they did not specifically relate to the elements covered in that section. The overall score was based on a wide range of relevant factors.
Background provided by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Transformation. · The draft statement would be further reviewed by Cabinet in a workshop session in September. Feedback from the Governance and Audit Committee was being sought in advance. · The Head of Finance provided a detailed overview of the proposed changes and the rationale behind them. · The risk appetite was not static and must evolve in response to changes in the operating environment, regulation, and strategic priorities. • The updated risk appetite would be embedded into the Council’s risk management system (JCAD), enabling consistent application across services. • Officers would be supported through training and guidance to ensure the risk appetite was understood and applied in decision-making, business cases, and risk registers. • The statement would also help standardise how risks were assessed, escalated, and mitigated across the organisation. Concerns raised by Committee Response from Officers Would risk appetite assessments be included in future committee papers? Would embedding risk appetite into reports help members better understand and evaluate risks when reviewing proposals? The Head of Finance clarified that the risk appetite was intended to serve as a background framework to support decision-making. For any projects or proposals, officers were expected to assess the associated risks and then consider whether the residual risk levels fell within the Council’s defined appetite for that activity. If the residual risk exceeded the appetite, further mitigation would be required, or the risk would need to be escalated appropriately. The Council was exploring the use of functionality within the JCAD risk management system to record and report on risk appetite more consistently. This would help ensure that the appetite was actively used in risk registers, business cases, and decision-making processes. Concern was shared that the Council appeared to be downgrading cyber security as a risk. Why was cyber security not considered one of the most serious risks facing the Council? Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Transformation confirmed that the matter had been discussed in a confidential Cabinet meeting recently. Assurance was given that cyber security remained on the Council’s Strategic Risk Register, reflecting its continued importance. Was the Council confident it was fully protected, given the global increase in cyber threats and data breaches? The Director of Corporate Services stated that while the Council was confident in the mitigations currently in place, no organisation could ever be entirely immune to cyber threats. The Council’s risk scoring took into account the effectiveness of existing controls and acknowledged that cyber risk was dynamic and constantly evolving. The Committee was reassured that the Council was maintaining vigilance and treating cyber security as a priority area within its risk management framework.
Background presented by the Director of Social Services and Wellbeing: • The final outstanding recommendation on the safeguarding regulatory tracker was reviewed and subsequently closed. • A full review of the Corporate Safeguarding Policy was scheduled for summer 2025, ahead of it turning 3 years old in December. • The Board received a presentation on the award-winning work of the Powys Ukrainian Resettlement Team, which won a Wales Safer Communities Award. • Updates were provided on regional safeguarding initiatives, including: • The digital adaptation of the Children’s Threshold Document. • Development of a regional policy on fabricated illness. • Implementation of the new Single Unified Safeguarding Review (SUSR) process. • Participation in a Welsh Government pilot on children missing education, with data sharing between health boards, independent schools, and local authorities starting April 2025. • The Board also reviewed learning from recent child and adult practice reviews and discussed the new Charter for Families Bereaved Through Public Tragedy. • Corporate staff compliance with mandatory safeguarding training stood at 96.6%. Compliance in primary schools was at 61.1%. Concerns raised by Committee Response from Officers Were all staff were required to complete Level 1 training, or could some staff begin at Level 2 or Level 3 depending on their role? Level 1 remained a prerequisite for Level 2. It was noted that previously some staff had booked onto Level 2 training without completing Level 1. This had now been addressed by making Level 1 completion a requirement before booking onto Level 2. If staff had completed Level 2 or Level 3 training were they still required to complete Level 1, and if so, why had some not done so? Compliance was measured per position rather than per individual. Many staff hold multiple positions across schools, which could skew the compliance figures. When measured per individual, compliance was over 73%, compared to the reported 61.1%. Additionally, some staff had created their own e-learning accounts, meaning their training wasn’t recorded centrally. Measures had been taken to correct this, including reminders to headteachers and manual uploads of certificates to the Trent system. Concern was raised that the compliance rate of 73% still represented a significant gap. The need for rapid progress was emphasised in ensuring that all relevant staff completed Level 1 training, particularly if it was a prerequisite for Level 2. Assurance was provided that the Corporate Safeguarding Board had robust discussions around this, and it remained a priority.
Background presented by the Senior Fraud Investigator: • 63 open 63 open potential fraud cases and 83 open NFI cases were ongoing at the time of reporting. • £158k in recoverable overpayments had been identified. • £436k in potential income/savings had been flagged through fraud prevention and detection efforts. • Two council properties were recovered through tenancy fraud investigations and were now available for allocation to eligible residents. The estimated value of each recovered tenancy was based on a nationally recognised benchmark, not a local estimate. • The team continued to issue regular fraud and scam alerts, particularly in response to emerging threats such as cybercrime, identity theft, and AI-generated fraud. National Fraud Initiative (NFI): • Powys County Council participated in the latest NFI round, which compared council data with other public and private sector datasets to identify anomalies. • Matches from this exercise were actively being investigated and contributed to the figures reported. No concerns were raised by the Committee.
Capital Working Group: • The Capital Working Group had held their first meeting. • Members agreed to first examine the capital programme, followed by the schools’ programme. • The initial focus under the capital heading was asset disposals. • Questions were circulated to relevant officers, with responses to be collated ahead of the next meeting to enable an evidence-based discussion. • A separate meeting was scheduled at the request of education officers to consider modular school building construction. This one-off meeting was set for the end of July. Whistleblowing Working Group: • The Governance and Audit Committee had previously reviewed the working group’s report and agreed its recommendations. • Councillor Lewington had presented the report to Cabinet. • Cabinet raised no questions and noted the report. • The next step was for the report to be submitted to Democratic Services to consider the recommendations, which would require amendments to the Constitution.
The committee reviewed its forward work programme and scheduled future items.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.