Agenda item

Capital Programme

Core financials & budgetary controls

Apprenticeship Scheme & Levy

Governance Role

Disaster Recovery

Website Accessibility

SKnowles introduced the report, explaining that the first item is Capital Programme Report which starts on Pg.13.  Good assurance report, no recommendations raised.  One finding was noted due to one project selected for sample not having a fully completed capital bid which is required by the Council, but it was found that this is due to it being a historic budget process and since that time the process and governance has been strengthened, therefore this has not been raised as a recommendation but felt it should be noted within the report.

 

Cllr Townsend commented that as a general feature capital programmes tend to be late, would this have been picked up by this report?

 

SKnowles responded that they would have looked at budget setting and monitoring which would have incorporated if there may have been any delays.  There were not any particular delays in the areas looked at. 

 

Cllr Silwal referred to capital programme commenting that there is reference to five projects on pg.15 but he can only find four projects listed and so asked; what was the fifth project?

 

SKnowles responded that all 5 are included (2 were included under a single bullet point).

 

Cllr Silwal referred to there didn’t appear to be a clearly defined structure in place for overall plan and individual projects.

 

S Knowles responded that the difference in the two is more to do how the reporting happens; the programme overall gets reported at a higher level where as individual projects are managed within directorates, so this is just how each one is reported.

 

F Jump commented to assure Members that correct level of scrutiny was applied for the item covered by the note in the report.

 

S Knowles moved on to Core Financials & Budgetary Control, advising that in the past few years have had some really strong outcomes so this year’s piece of work looked at more of a self-assessment, sending feedback forms out to the service to see how they thought their controls were operating (see Pg.31) no recommendations to raise in these areas and able to give a good assurance.

 

S Knowles referred to Apprenticeship Scheme and Levy, advising this piece of audit work commenced just as we were entering lockdown so a different approach had to be taken on this with a different way of working, thanking the service for their cooperation.  In terms of evidence received it was good to see.  No recommendations raised in this piece of work and good assurance overall.

 

S Knowles introduced the Governance Role report advising this had two priority 2 recommendations, but overall substantial.  The two areas highlighted were compliance with mandatory training and members register of interest forms.  Both recommendations were accepted so no further comments.

 

BChapman referred to the 4 Councillors who had not submitted their forms in time and asked, what is being done about this?

 

Cllr Birnie picked up that the report states that the forms have now been returned.

 

Cllr Douris commented that in his role as Chair of Member Development Steering Group (MDSG) he is aware that there is some new software being introduced that will make the training much easier with the ability to log into the training programme and select the courses you want to go on.  Will also detail those Members who have not completed the mandatory training.  Will also allow for some remote training.  Excellent piece of work which will benefit everybody. 

 

N Howcutt urged all Members to make sure they attend mandatory training and also support colleagues to make that happen.  We are looking at different ways of delivering that and feedback from members is always welcome.  This is the first year of implementing mandatory training.

 

Cllr Symington wanted to follow up on a couple of things, one of notes in the report was it appeared to be the responsibility of the Chief Executive to send reminders to Group Leaders which she does not believe has happened.

 

C ONeil responded that this is a new reporting process, Members were given time to complete mandatory training following their appointment and as such Qtr 4 was the first circulation of reporting to the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer.  Given the current situation there has been some tolerance regarding completing mandatory training and additional sessions will be provided to give all Members opportunity to complete.   There is a mechanism to escalate to Standards if required but efforts will be made to resolve before that is required.

 

Cllr Syminton referred to register of interest advising that recently tried to change hers and was directed to website to self-serve, but was not able to do so, it would not allow editing and that button required was not available on her account.  This was reported to Member Support on 6^th June.

 

C ONeil responded she would get that looked at as a priority.

 

S Knowles introduced Disaster Recovery and Website Accessibility, advising these are two

ICT reports.  Disaster Recovery had three priority 2 recommendations and two housekeeping recommendations.  Website Accessibility two priority 2 recommendations.

 

Cllr Birnie expressed his disappointment regarding the outcomes in these two areas, advising that he was surprised to see that they were given substantial assurance ratings considering there are three significant findings in terms of disaster recovery and the additional two housekeeping.  Cannot understand how can come up with substantial assurance under those circumstances.

 

S Knowles responded that the report is a summary of the culmination of their findings, a lot more is tested than what is seen in the report.  It is a balance with mitigating circumstances, if there were not mitigations then that would raise concerns which would lead to a priority 1 due to a fundamental issue. 

 

Cllr Birnie responded that the mitigation offered for the significant findings on Disaster Recovery, which he noted hadn’t been updated since 2014, was that they would get on to it in August, expressing that he is unable to understand that leaving it until August gives any sense of urgency for something that is considered to be significant.

 

Cllr Birnie also referred to Website Accessibility and the fact that residents regularly report they cannot get things to work on a regular basis and he agrees with their concerns. 

 

B Trueman responded as the Group Manager responsible for ICT to clarify that Disaster Recovery is different to Business Continuity.  In this audit that Business Continuity Plan is what ICT does in terms of their own service delivery when they do not have access to technology – every department in the Council has their own plan for this.  This is not to set out how ICT support the organisation through a recovery situation.  The high level disaster recovery schedule being referred to as not having been updated since 2014 is a very specific document about what order we would look to restore services if we lost our network connections to the organisation.  It had been through the update in 2017, BTrueman offered apologies that the update date had not been changed from 2014 to 2017 which was an oversight on part of officers. 

 

Cllr Birnie commented that audit found that the staff induction process did not include disaster recovery.

 

BTrueman responded that annual training and testing on disaster recovery is run for the team.

 

Cllr Symington followed up commenting that the report is dated March 2020 and some of the timescales were for April/June 2020 and asked; have these actions already been taken?

 

BTrueman responded that anything dated June or earlier has already been completed.

 

Cllr Symington referred to Pg.84 (Website Accessibility) where it says that the Council is 93^rd and asked, is that a centile or is that out of a specific number of authorities? 

 

BTrueman responded it is a straightforward ranking. 

 

Cllr Symington referred to matter of priority and timescale for fixing website, which is October 2020, commenting that timescale doesn’t feel like it is being applied as a priority.  There are often complaints about Planning Portal and the report also refers to underlined coding issues.

 

BTrueman responded to advise this audit refers to accessibility in terms of those who have visual and other impairments and how well the website is suited to them in terms of screen readers, clarifying that it does not refer to website usability.

 

Cllr Symington responded that the Planning Portal coding issue is specifically referred to in the report.

 

BTrueman responded that the underlying coding issues relate to accessibility and are due to this being 3^rd party software and coding that we cannot access.  Need to go back to supplier to ask them what they can do as it is not compatible with screen readers.  October 2020 may sound like a long timescale but there is a lot of build and test to undertake in terms of accessibility to deliver this.

 

SKnowles confirmed this audit referred to accessibility in terms of visual and other impairments, not the usability of the website.

 

Cllr Birnie commented the website is not very useable for residents and Members alike, urging that internal auditors look at this on the next occasion.

 

BTrueman responded that although this report this is specific brief in terms of accessibility, he would welcome detailed feedback from Members regarding usability.

 

Cllr Douris responded to the comments from Cllr Symington and Cllr Birnie and responded that we should recognise that the website is an integral part of how we communicate with our residents, suggesting this comes back to either Audit or Overview & Scrutiny to ensure the matters raised have been addressed.

 

N Howcutt responded that he would ensure that is on the Finance & Resource OSC forward plan.