Meetings
Governance Statement
This page gives details of any meetings held which will, or did, discuss the matter, and includes links to the relevant Papers, Agendas and Minutes.
Note: Meeting Agenda can change at short notice. Particularly where future meeting dates are indicated more than a week in advance. Please check before planning to attend a Committee Meeting that the item you are interested in has not been moved.
Meeting: 22/02/2016 - Management Board (Item 5)
Summary and next steps
·
Action to finalise the Assurance
Statements
·
Items
of corporate significance for inclusion in the Governance Statement
·
Improvements to be made by the
end of the financial year and beyond
Minutes:
The meeting had provided a very positive contribution to the process
and Claire thanked everyone for the work that had gone into preparing for the
next Governance Statement.
A note of the meeting would be circulated to Management Board, and,
once finalised, would feed into the Governance Statement. The note would also
outline actions to be taken forward and where further input was needed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Annex A
Note of discussion on Governance
Statement 2015-16
1.0 Introduction
Attendance at the meeting is captured in the formal minutes.
2.0 Examine the effectiveness of the Assurance
Framework components
The Assurance Framework was a structured means of mapping the
assurance processes within the organisation and had been used by Heads of
Service as an aide memoire in the preparation of their individual statements,
to help identify any gaps, weaknesses or duplication in the assurances. Having
it captured in this way also provided a means of measuring performance against
the Framework.
The Board reviewed the Framework and the RAG status of assurance map
components. Keith Baldwin recommended that it was of particular importance to
have confidence in the first lines of defence. The Board considered three
components that had previously been identified for strengthening and agreed
that:
·
Service plans were being used and reviewed
effectively as evolving documents that staff understood (change to Green
status);
·
there had been a big improvement in the PMDR
process with the introduction of the emphasis on behaviours, but another round
of reviews would ensure that this was embedded (retain current status); and
·
there was still further work to do on
programme and project governance (retain current status).
In response to challenge from Keith on the evidence for making any
changes to RAG status, Claire clarified that the discussion had taken account
of evidence based on analysis of the more detailed service-level assurance
statements and analysis of the assurance mapping exercise.
The Board also agreed that there were aspects of assurance in place
that were not captured in the framework. This included ongoing internal
scrutiny, or informal audits (for example, quality assurance on PMDRs) by
Service Heads, including using the business analysts. Further assurance was
also provided by the work of the Remuneration Board, Pension Trustees,
Standards Commissioner etc. There were also inter parliamentary links that
contributed to challenge and assurances around the robustness and effectiveness
of governance arrangements.
Additionally, the process of annual reporting on Official Languages
compliance and sustainability were substantial areas of work that provided
further assurances on accountability and the Public Accounts Committee, Finance
Committee, monthly Commission questions and debates provided a strong level of
scrutiny to the organisation.
Actions:
Gareth Watts/Kathryn Hughes to investigate the addition of the annual
reporting and Committee/Member scrutiny and update framework as appropriate.
Amend diagram to include (service audits in the first line of defence and
Remuneration Board etc. in the third line of defence as discussed.
Management Board to consider what action can be taken to move the
components to green status.
3.0 Discussion of draft Directorate Assurance
Statements
This year the Board was scrutinising the Assurance Statements prepared
by the Directors, having considered the statements from their respective
Service Heads.
The Directors outlined the key points from their statements.
Commission Services Directorate Assurance Statement
Craig Stephenson highlighted strengths in the following areas:
·
working with other services to prepare for the
next Assembly;
·
outcomes of the Record of Proceedings review
being driven by customer views;
·
pioneering the inter-parliamentary network to
inform the review of the CPD programme;
·
review of Welsh language teaching provision;
·
continuing external recognition, showing
modelling of good practice;
·
promoting the work of the Directorate more,
particularly that of Translation and Reporting Service (language technology);
·
internally, more engagement with teams on
capacity planning; and
·
raising awareness on information governance.
Some areas for further improvement included embedding and refreshing
understanding of information governance rules with teams and embedding language
plans. The frequency and depth of risk reviews in TRS had been increased due to
the amount of change in that area. Overall, Craig had no major concerns within
his Directorate.
Keith Baldwin gave his observations on the assurance statement,
acknowledging the key achievements on the strategic goals and recommended
clarifying how structures added to assurance and adding further specific
examples of compliance and good governance in the financial year.
Assembly Resources Directorate
The Resources Directorate was a relatively new Directorate, but Dave
Tosh felt that there was a good level of compliance, highlighting improvements
and areas for further work as follows:
·
HR had moved to a more proactive service and the appointment of HR Account Managers was working well;
·
risk management was becoming more formalised,
particularly corporate risk with, for example, constructive ‘deep-dive’
discussions at ACARAC for specific risks, including capacity planning;
·
better understanding of resource needs and
improved flexibility through effective capacity planning;
·
Business Continuity needed further impetus,
with training for co-ordinators and a repeat incident management exercise,
possibly involving Assembly Members, early in the Fifth Assembly;
·
consideration of governance and assurance
challenges presented by changes of Presiding Officer, Commissioners and Chief
Executive;
·
greater focus on efficiency and effectiveness
informed by the Business Efficiency Review; and
·
work on development of a new set of corporate
performance measures.
Keith Baldwin commented that the statement was clear and addressed
topics well. It also clearly outlined what needed to be done in 2016-17,
including an emphasis on Business Continuity and, in relation to the amber RAG
status on the Assurance Framework, a focus on project management. In response,
Dave described how learning from the project and programme management approach
was being applied to the launch of the My Senedd programme.
The Board also recommended including in the statement the stay safe
work undertaken by Security.
Financial Services
Nicola Callow outlined progress in achievements, concerns and areas
for continued improvement, as follows:
·
basic controls in place were working well,
with the service now fully staffed;
·
finance reports were being produced more
quickly, with better financial information to facilitate IRB decision making
and improved briefings for PAC, Finance Committee and on pensions;
·
interim accounts for the year had been
produced successfully and some concerns around the final accounts process and
the change of Auditor were being addressed;
·
business continuity, information assets and
language plans were established but needed further embedding;
·
clear improvements in capacity planning,
whilst recognising the need to align this with timings in terms of budget
planning; and
·
pensions information and assurance to be
developed further, as with work done on key financial controls and finance
systems to ensure they were as smooth, effective and efficient as possible.
Keith Baldwin acknowledged the good evidence of assurance given.
However, he recommended: revisiting the structure of the statement; clarifying
progress against areas identified for strengthening in last year’s Governance
Statement; sharpening examples on the strategic goals; and outlining management
of the key service risks.
Assembly Business Directorate
Adrian Crompton highlighted the strengths and improvements in the
Directorate along with areas for development, as follows:
·
there was a strengthened Strategic
Transformation team, including successful recruitment of staff with project
management skills and experience;
·
excellent handling of constitutional change
issues and the substantial work with the Remuneration Board;
·
better integration of leadership within the
Directorate, following the model of integrated teams, whilst recognising that
there was further work to do on integration across the organisation;
·
development work included ensuring sufficient
time was devoted to consideration of issues presented to IRB; maximising the
value from internal audit; improving performance measures; and the challenges
around the level of change in the forthcoming year.
Adrian also made reference to the effective management of corporate
risks around political and constitutional change, and decisions of the
Remuneration Board, as demonstrated in his statement and in the points above.
He also referred to the value added by internal audit in providing assurance on
key processes and systems.
Keith Baldwin noted the good story around key achievements and
awareness of governance, to include in the final Governance Statement. It was
agreed there could be more explicit reference to delivery against the strategic
goals, management of risks and effectiveness of governance arrangements.
Legal Services Directorate
Elisabeth Jones explained that Legal Services was smaller and less
complex than other Directorates and its achievements, focussed on providing
outstanding parliamentary support, were shared with other service areas. She
described how she provided assurance directly to Claire on a continual basis
through regular discussions.
Elisabeth also outlined the improvements, which were more iterative
than step-change, for example, embedding of the PMDR process. Areas for further
development included progression of the training programme, raising the profile
of the service with Members and reviewing the structure to ensure integrated
services were provided.
Keith Baldwin recommended addressing specifically the effectiveness of
governance principles in the statement. He also suggested that the structure of
the statement could be improved by following the four areas identified in the
guidance.
Overall comments
Keith Baldwin was invited to reflect on the assurance statements and
process. He felt the Directorate statements had worked much better than service
level in bringing the information together for the Governance Statement. There
was strong evidence of achievements and good governance, with a focus on
internal controls, which were relevant to include in the final Governance
Statement. The analysis provided had also been very useful. He suggested that
areas to consider were:
·
statements should follow a consistent
structure to make it easier to ensure all areas were covered;
·
consider the achievements in the light of those
appropriate for the Governance Statement;
·
illustrate better, with examples, to show
reasons for being satisfied with assurances;
·
directly demonstrate progress against areas
identified for improvement in the 2015-16 Governance Statement;
·
address clarity of effectiveness against
governance principles as well as awareness; and
·
make more reference to the Assurance
Framework.
4.0
Next Steps
Action to finalise Assurance Statements
Each Director would finalise their statements, adding or redrafting as
necessary, including sufficient examples and ensuring properly evidence based.
Claire Clancy, together with the Governance team would then review the
statements to decide what should go into the Governance Statement, picking up
on areas emphasised in the Directors’ presentations.
The Governance Statement should present a full balanced view of
progress on areas for strengthening identified in the 2015-16 statement,
including business continuity and project and programme management. The list in the analysis (paragraph 4) should
be used as a starting point for achievements of corporate significance. It
should also include more internal focus on achievements, such as capacity
planning, effectiveness of internal audit, the Assurance Framework and
information governance; etc.
The Governance Statement would need to be finalised by July. Kathryn
Hughes would send confirmation to the Board of what needed to be done with
deadlines.
5.0 Summing up
Dave Tosh would look at the structure and guidance for the following
year’s Directorate level assurance statements, keeping a degree of flexibility
to facilitate efficiency in preparation.
Finally,
thanks were given to Kathryn Hughes and Gareth Watts for their work in
preparing for the meeting, to Keith Baldwin for his input to the process of
challenge and to Board members for their contribution to the evidence gathering
process.
Meeting: 22/02/2016 - Management Board (Item 3)
Objectives for the meeting
Supporting documents:
- Restricted enclosure 4
- Restricted enclosure 5
Minutes:
Claire Clancy welcomed Keith Baldwin to the
meeting, who was attending to provide independent challenge on the assurance
statements. As part of his role as a member of the Audit and Risk Assurance
Committee, Keith’s involvement added further assurance to the Commission on the
governance statement process and, in particular the quality of Directors’
assurance statements.
The meeting would form an important element of
the process for gathering the assurances that Claire, as Accounting Officer,
needed for the production of the Governance Statement for 2015-16.
The purpose was to ensure that the draft
Directorate Assurance Statements identified key achievements against the
Commission’s strategic goals, focussing on any key corporate achievements;
provide evidence of awareness of, and compliance with governance principles,
rules and procedures and the effectiveness of the governance arrangements;
demonstrate effective management of risks; and show progress against areas for
improvement highlighted in last year’s Governance Statement and how the
delivery of service plan objectives has been monitored.
Copies of the statements from the Directors,
which drew upon the individual assurance statements from each Service area, had
been circulated prior to the meeting.
The key outcomes for the meeting were to:
·
determine
what was of corporate significance from the Directorate Assurance Statements
that should be highlighted in the Governance Statement;
·
assess
the Board’s confidence about the extent to which delivery against the corporate
priorities is being achieved; and
·
consider
whether the governance tools that are in place, such as risk management and
service plans, were enabling service areas to deliver on the priorities and drive
improvement.
A
detailed note of the discussion is at Annex A.