Accounts Commission August 2025 meeting transcript
14 August 2025
 
Jo Armstrong   0:00
Welcome to today's meeting of the Accounts Commission, which is being held both in person in the room in Edinburgh and online. I'm joined by Audit Scotland staff here in Edinburgh, the Commission's support staff, and the Commission members, apart from myself and Andrew, the deputy chair, are online.
The public session of today's meeting is being recorded and this recording will be made available via the Accounts Commission's website as soon as possible and available on request in the interim.
Members of the public are also welcome to observe the public session this morning.
Those who are watching this from home, please make sure you're here as an observer and not to participate, and as a consequence of that your camera and microphone are already off.
I’d particularly like to welcome the representatives from Glasgow City Council who are watching online this morning. Thank you for joining us.
Commission Members, and other colleagues when participating in a specific agenda item, if I can ask you to please keep your camera on, but keep your microphone on mute except when you're being called to speak.
If you wish to speak, please use the raise hand function in Teams.
And please do not use the chat function for discussions unless you're having a technical issue that prevents you from speaking.
May I ask all who are speaking during the meeting today to speak clearly and loudly, both for the benefit of the recording, but for anybody who has reduced hearing.
That takes me to item 1. Apologies for absence, Sarah.

Sarah Watters   1:47
Yeah. We have apologies from Christine Lester and Nicola Brown.

Jo Armstrong   1:54
That takes us then to declarations of connections. I'll start with this one if I can. I'd like to declare 2 connections in relation to the section 102 report on Glasgow City Council on items 5 and 10 today.
As chair of the Wheatley Group, I have a connection to the Council through the City Building joint venture.
I also have a connection with the former chief executive who took over from me as… as chair of Hub West Scotland in January this year.
Given these two connections, I propose handing the chair to Andrew Burns, the deputy chair, and recusing myself on the discussion, any conclusions and any decisions made by the Commission and any media in relation to the report. 
Can I ask any Members who have any connections of interest regarding any items on today's agenda then to please state their connections or interests,  and whether they could… they consider it material enough to need to recuse themselves.
Derek.

Derek Yule 
Thanks. Thanks, chair. It's in relation to the report in Glasgow City Council, the Council's then executive director of finance is someone that I've known since I think around 1996, where he was one of our senior finance staff at Clackmannanshire Council, and subsequently we've worked together in a number of roles, particularly with involvement with the CIPFA Scottish branch and CIPFA Directors of Finance section. I don't believe that this working relationship precludes me participating fully in this, this report and I would plan to, to stay for the meeting.

Jo Armstrong 
Thank you. Angela.

Angela Leitch 
Thank you, chair. Like Derek, I would like to declare an interest in item number 5, the section 102 report on Glasgow City Council. I have known the former chief executive both in a professional and a personal capacity for over 2 decades. So I would like to be recused from this discussion.

Jo Armstrong 
Thanks Angela. Sarah.

Sarah Watters 
Yep. Thanks, chair. So again in relation to item 5. I worked closely with the former executive director of finance when I was at COSLA and through the Directors of Finance Session. But I don't believe this means I should leave the meeting.

Jo Armstrong 
Thank you.
If there are no other declarations or connections we'll move on then to item 3 orders of business.
As normal, I'd like to seek the Commission's approval for the order of business today. I propose that we consider items 9 to 16 in private for the reasons set out on the agenda, are Members agreed?
Thank you.
Item 4 then is minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting. Sarah.

Sarah Watters   4:42
Thanks, chair. So there's no amendments noted by Members in advance of the meeting. There was 1 outstanding action around audit delivery and escalation procedures in relation to audit delivery, and that will be covered by item 9, the Controller of Audit’s update. And again, will probably feature in the discussion under item 14 when we discuss intervention options.
And the other three actions that are on the minute are now completed.

Jo Armstrong 
Thank you. Well, that then takes us to item 5, which is the section 102 report on Glasgow City Council and for the reasons been stated earlier, I will now recuse myself from this session and hand over to Andrew Burns to chair. Thank you.

Andrew Burns   5:25
OK, thanks Jo. We’ll just have a brief pause while Jo leaves the room and I can see that Angela, who also declared a sort of pecuniary interest, is now logged off the call.
OK, colleagues, so thanks very much. We're joined on the call obviously by the individuals that Jo mentioned that start, but also specifically for this item, we've got the Controller of Audit, Helena Gray here obviously who will respond to questions in due course, but she's also joined by Stephen Reid, a partner of Ernst and Young, and Rachel Wynne, a senior audit manager, manager at EY. So welcome to Stephen and Rachel, thanks for joining the call this morning. 
So everybody I think is aware this is a statutory report by the Controller of Audit, who I just mentioned, on senior officer exit packages at Glasgow City Council. And the report was produced following the 2023/24 annual audit and independent Review that subsequently followed by Brodies law firm. 
The Commission is invited to consider and endorse the Controller of Audit's report, which we've got before us this morning, in this session. And obviously to, noting that the conclusions that the Controller of Audit arrives at are not necessarily the Commission's conclusions.
And the Controller and the audit team, Stephen and Rachel, join us online to provide clarifications or answers to questions that members may have on the report. And we have around an hour for the discussion. We don't have to take the full hour, but obviously it's a significant issue, so I'm very happy if we do take a full hour to go through the issues that colleagues want to raise.  
We'll then consider in private under item 10 later in today's session, how the Commission wishes to proceed. And that set of decisions, whatever they are, will eventually in due course be made public, obviously. 
So I think on that point I'll hand over to Helena in the first instance to introduce the report. Thanks very much Helena.

Helena Gray   7:31
Thank you and good morning, everybody and I welcome the opportunity to discuss my statutory 102 report on senior officer exit payments at Glasgow City Council with the Commission this morning, and I'm delighted to be joined by Stephen and Rachel from the audit team and I thank them for all their hard work on their annual audit.
I'd also just like to thank the Council and Brodies for allowing me to use the content of the independent review, to which I'll refer a number of times to inform my report. 
Organisational and staff restructuring helps organisations ensure that resources are aligned to priorities. Redeployment, redundancy packages and early retirement are all part of the tools at an organisation’s disposal to ensure that they have the right people in the right place, and the right skills at the right time. But it's important that, as with any decisions that relate to the deployment of resources, decisions are transparent, effectively scrutinised and deliver value for money.
And my report looks at both of these issues and concludes that there was a lack of appropriate scrutiny, transparency and governance surrounding the decisions relating to the exit of five senior staff from Glasgow City Council between 2021 and 2024. Crucially, there does not appear to be a clear document trail that sets out how decisions would be taken, how conflicts would be managed and whether political consideration was required. 
The value for money case is also unclear. While there is a case made that the benefits of the restructure would result in a payback period of just over a year, it's not clear what consideration was given to alternative mechanisms for change and their associated benefits.
The Council's decision to undertake an independent review into the circumstances surrounding these exit packages, and their decision to consider this in public, shows a commitment to transparency and a desire to learn lessons. The independent review is clear that they did not find evidence of any recipient of a severance or retirement package, or any other officer, acted improperly, nor do they believe that there is any reasonable basis for the recovery of sums paid by the Council in respect of early retirement or redundancy packages. 
The independent review and appointed auditors highlight the need for changes to the Council's scheme of delegations, and the Council has accepted the auditors’ recommendations and committed to take forward the necessary improvements, which auditors will keep under the review as part of the annual audit. 
As local government bodies grapple with challenging fiscal realities and take forward pro… proposals for reform and transformation, they will need to think about the structure of their workforce, and may need to take some tough decisions in doing so.
And I hope my report and the Commission's discussion this morning will be a salient reminder for all local government bodies of the need for transparency, good governance and scrutiny over such decisions, and the extent to which they represent value for money. 
I'll pause there, chair. And be delighted to answer any further questions.

Andrew Burns   10:24
OK. Thank, thanks very much, Helena, that's really helpful by way of introduction. And obviously Helena will, I’m sure, turn to Stephen and Rachel to assist with responses to questions in due course. 
And I should have said, I mean I'll repeat this at the end again, but just for the sake of those that aren't familiar with the Commission's processes, the Commission's got a set of options open to it. It can direct the Controller of Audit to carry out further investigations. It can instruct to hold the hearing or it can state a set of findings. And those are the things that will, we’ll want to discuss and decide on in private under item 10 as I said right at the start, and that will be communicated publicly in due course. 
But for now, just to try and structure the discussion around the 102 report and the Brodies report that's behind it, we're going to work our way through a small number of subject areas, some relating to the facts of the case, followed by some broader considerations, and potential lessons to be learned. And we've got 8 Commission members on the call because we've had two apologies and Jo, the chair, and Angela have recused themselves, Angela Leitch have recused themselves. So there’s 8 Commission members on the call who could potentially ask questions. 
I'm going to turn to, I think Jennifer first, who's going to kick us off with some questions around the actual restructure process. Jennifer.

Jennifer Henderson   11:45
Thank you, Andrew. Yeah. Hi, Helena. Hi, Stephen and Rachel. 
I was just wanting to clarify a couple of things about the sort of process, notwithstanding Helena, you said that some of the challenge here is about how well documented things were in the decision making.
The bump redundancy piece I find quite interesting. Do we understand why bump redundancies were used here and why the Council didn't just go through a process of creating a redundancy situation for the post that it wished to  remove. So that's my sort of first question on the very specifics of this one. 
And then I suppose more widely, I was interested in whether we've seen any evidence around how the Council has generally handled any other restructures and whether the approach they took for these particular posts was similar to what they've done. 
I mean, do, you know, have they done other restructures? Have they used bump redundancies? Has the decision making been clear?  I mean you might tell me they haven't and we haven't got anything to compare it with. 
But if I can kick off with those two questions that would be helpful in certainly giving me a bit better of an understanding of what's happened here?

Andrew Burns 
Thanks.

Helena Gray   13:02
Thanks, Jennifer.
I'll bring in Stephen and the team in a moment just to talk a little bit more about perhaps other restructures carried out by the Council, but just to kick off with your question around bump redundancy. 
I think as I explained in my introduction, the restructure paper doesn't clearly articulate the op… why the options were chosen over alternatives, so it doesn't explain why the Council chose to use bump redundancy over other options. But it does refer to it as an as providing an opportunity for succession planning and allowing opportunities for staff, staff development. 
In terms of other restructures carried out by the Council, and I think, you know, it is important to emphasise the point that I made in the introduction that, that Councils do need to undertake organisational and staff restructuring exercises to ensure that resources are aligned to priorities. 
With respect of this year, so the 24/25 unaudited financial statements do show a number of exit packages.
To the sum of around 10.28 million. That is relating to, I believe, and I'll bring Stephen in to talk a little bit more about this, a particular group within the Council as part of a strategy for the future of digital and ICT services.
But auditors will obviously be considering the governance, scrutiny and transparency of those exit packages as part of the 24/25 audit, which is ongoing and will be reported in due course. 
Looking a little bit further back over the last two financial years, so 23/24 and 24/25, there has been an increase in the value and number of exit packages at the Council. However, going even further back between 2019/20 and 22/23, the average annual cost of exit packages was just 1.1 million. So, so obviously a lot smaller than we're seeing at the moment. 
But I'll bring Stephen in to see if he's got anything further to say by way of comparisons from other restructures. Thanks.

Andrew Burns
Thanks Helena. Stephen?

Stephen Reid   15:27
Thank you, Helena. Thank you, chair. Good morning, everyone. In relation to, and clearly the paper, the report before us and the content of my annual audit report reflects a set of relatively unique circumstances given the seniority of the individuals involved and the issues that have been highlighted around the governance. 
In relation to bump redundancy, this is 23/24 rec… is the second year of our appointment and while the Council uses bump redundancy, I understand, as it considers appropriate, clearly, there's very little comparison for us to make, given the relative length of our appointment period and also the unique circumstances of the report. As Helena does identify, in the unaudited 24/25 financial statements, there are a significant number of exit packages at a cost of around 10.3 million. Clearly those will be subject to the external audit process in due course. They do relate to, a large part of them relate to the future and digital of ICT services and decisions taken by the Council in September 23, but other than that, nothing to add chair.

Jennifer Henderson 
Thank you.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks very much, Stephen. Jennifer, did you want to come back? Are you OK with those responses?

Jennifer Henderson 
No, I'm OK with those. That's really, really helpful to just answer a couple of outstanding queries in my mind.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Jennifer.
Just before we move on from the restructure processes, did anybody else want to come in on those points. Ruth, did I see you raise your hand?
Go ahead, Ruth.

Ruth MacLeod   17:09
Thanks very much and thank you for the report. 
I think one of the things that came across from the independent report was the kind of flimsy basis for the chief executive departure and particularly that couldn't really be justified in terms of early retirement, cost savings or succession planning because the post continues to remain. It, it did seem to be retrospectively linked to the deletion of the executive director role for development and regeneration, and I'm just wondering if you can give any clarity around why those two posts were linked? 
I think in terms of what normally people understand around redundancy, the departure of the chief executive and also the solicitor post was mentioned as not really fitting in terms of Council policies around redundancy or early retirement either. So it's just to try and help understand the Council's take on what a redundancy would be, and particularly in relation to linking it with other posts. And a kind of more broad understanding, normally of people thinking redundancy actually means a post will no longer exist.
So I wonder if there's anything more that you can say around that?

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Ruth. Helena or other colleagues, Stephen, Rachel, do you want to come in on that?.

Helena Gray   18:33
Thanks, Ruth. I'll probably just talk a little bit, I suppose, just about the link to the deleted post and the value for money case. I'm not sure I've got much more to add to my report, but just to set out the sequencing of some of those decisions.
So the decision to delete the executive director role was taken by a Council committee in January 2021 without reference to the chief executive role and before the restructuring proposal was circulated. When the first draft of the restructuring proposal was circ... made, there was no link between the executive director role and the chief exec role. But then the final version of the report does link the two posts. 
And Brodies acknowledged that the chief exec’s line management responsibilities increased as a result of the abolition of the post. But in paragraph 6.11 of the report, they highlight that they do not consider that a convincing justification for the link given the post had been abolished a month earlier and the savings already achieved. And I think, as I say in paragraph 31 of my report, I conclude that it is particularly difficult to see the justification for the chief exec’s early retirement on the grounds of cost saving and efficiency savings because as, as you've highlighted, Ruth, the post remains. I believe there were links are made to succession planning as well and that was, that was part of the rationale, but as I highlight in paragraph 32, I think the rationale for the link to support the case for the chief exec retirement contributing to savings is unclear.
And if I just come very quickly to the to the solicitor’s role, just I think to clarify a few points on that. And again the detail of this is set out in the Brodies report in paragraph 5.41, but the solicitor received a severance payment and not a redundancy or early retirement package. 
Had she been made redundant, she would have been entitled to receive some portion of her pension based on age and length of service, and had that been the case, the payback period would have been in excess of two years, and therefore not in compliance with Council policy. So as a result, the Council agreed with Ms Forrest that she would not be made formally redundant, but would receive a severance payment., 
The Brodies report highlights that the package appears to be calculated in accordance with the relevant policies. But it's not clear that she fell within  the scope of those policies. I hope that helps.

Ruth MacLeod 
Thank you.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Helena. Thanks, Ruth. If you want to come back in that, is that OK?

Ruth MacLeod 
No, that's very helpful. Thanks very much.

Andrew Burns   21:24
OK. So thanks to Jennifer and Ruth for those questions around the restructure process. I'm not seeing any other hands on that issue. So I'm going to move on to the sort of second of the half dozen or so sort of themes that I mentioned at the start and that's around the financial impact.
And Derek, did you want to lead off in this area?

Derek Yule   21:41
Yeah. Thanks very much. Chair. I've got a couple of questions really to try and tease out to make sure I've got this right and understand the decision making process. 
So a general question really because one of the things that struck me from the report was the timing of all the various departures of the, the five individuals, it seems to be spread over quite a period of time, so I'm just wondering, in terms of the costs and savings that are mentioned in the report, have these been achieved?
There did seem to be on the face of it, quite a strong business case in terms of the payback period and what not. I don't think any of this is particularly unusual per se, but it'd be interesting to know what was the driving force behind this originally. 
Was it driven by the need to deliver savings? Was it to deliver a service restructuring?
Or both. So I generally just trying to understand what was the key driver for that. 
My other question is really a follow on from Ruth’s in many respects, but I'm very keen to try and tease out what's appears to be a kind of lack of transparency about how the Council came to the decisions that it did. 
So and from memory. I think there are three statutory posts within a Council - chief, chief social work officer, chief financial officer and monitoring officer.
What I'm less sure about is the chief executive, whether that's a statutory post, I think. I think in my head it is a statutory post because effectively it's the head of the paid service within the Council and as such, salary or, salaries are set by Scottish Government.
So my question is, on that basis and my thinking is right, I cannot understand how the Council could come to a conclusion that you could make the post of chief executive redundant, whether it was on the grounds of efficiency or on any other grounds.
So the question comes back to value for money but you mentioned in your introduction, Helena. How can the Council demonstrate value for money around this, given, if my thinking is right, the payment to the former chief executive had no basis in my, in my mind, in terms of legitimacy, to come to that conclusion when you could not make a post redundant. And while the other statutory posts I've mentioned, I know about across the country have been subject to service restructuring, what not. But and posts might have been down, got pushed down the structure, but those actual statutory posts have never been removed from structures. And I have the same idea with the chief executive. But where the chief executive post is different, it's, because it's the head of paid service, you cannot bump any other post in relation to that. 
The only tenuous link I might, and I suppose it links to the post that there's retrospectively there was a director's post somehow linked somewhat tenuously to it.
But that would only work if that person or someone else within the Council took on the role of chief executive. And I think I'm right in saying that the new chief executive was appointed after external advert and was external to the Council. So that, to me it just kind of supports the view that you could not link any kind of bumped redundancy with the chief executive post. 
So on that basis, I suppose what I'm, sort of challenging back, and I'm conscious there was legal advice, but are we sure that the payment to the chief executive was lawful for the reasons that I've outlined on the basis you can't make the post redundant?
And I also note from your report that the former chief executive subsequently repaid the pension benefits, and I wonder if we have any explanation for the reasons behind that, which kind of seems to support my line of argument in the first place.
Thank you.

Andrew Burns 
OK. Thanks, Derek. A lot in there, Helena. I mean the first set, the questions were around the timing of the departures and the second around transparency and the specific cost of chief executive. 
Over to you.

Helena Gray   26:15
Thanks. And yes, a lot in there and I'll try and address each of those points, but also bring in state, Stephen and Rachel in case I've missed anything. 
I think probably I'd first just start by reiterating the general point that I made and referring back to both paragraph 31 and 32 of my report where I conclude it is difficult to see the justification for the chief exec’s early retirement on the grounds of savings and succession planning. In terms of your earlier point around that rationale, Derek, I believe that the rationale was around cost savings and succession planning,  and, but I do struggle to see the justification for that in relation to the chief exec’s role. And, as I've already said, the link to support the case for, to the deleted post and the savings that that would make also appear unclear.
In terms of the savings that have been achieved, so the restructure report highlights that the annual financial savings would be 0.65 million and the net cost of the restructure would be 0.73 million. So that results in a payback period of just over a year.
But while the payback period is reported as being over a year, as, as you've already mentioned, the exits were phased over a three-year period and so the cost savings will have been realised over that period too. And I'm not sure we have information on whether those savings have been achieved or not. That'd be something that the Council would be would need to comment on how they're reporting on monitoring those service level changes and the delivery of those arrangements, but I'll bring Stephen and Rachel in in a moment. They might be able to say more on that. 
Just finally in terms of the former chief exec’s repayment of the pension benefits, again, I think it's worth reiterating that Brodies did not find evidence that any of the severance or retirement packages were out with the Council's early retirement or redundancy policies, but they, Brodies did not conclude that the chief exec was not entitled to the pension strength costs which she received, but instead that the Council had acted in a procedurally improper manner in approving her application. 
The independent review concluded that there is no reasonable basis for the recovery of the sums paid by the Council in respect of the five early retirement or redundancy packages, but I understand that the chief exec chose to explore with the pension fund returning the costs associated with the strain on the basis of the Brodies report, and the conclusion that the application for early retirement was not, on the face of it, lawfully approved in terms of the Council’s scheme of delegated functions. 
And then I think finally just on that point, I'd refer back to paragraph 10.1 of the Brodies report that highlights that any action of the Council is deemed to be lawful unless it is quashed by a competent court or tribunal.
Even in circumstances where there are doubts over the lawfulness of a procedure used by the Council to approve a decision, the approval remains lawful unless it is challenged and a court upholds the challenge. 
But I'll bring in Stephen and Rachel and see if they've got anything further to add at this point. Thanks.

Stephen Reid 
Thanks, Helena. In terms of the points that you made… 

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Helena.

Stephen Reid 
Sorry, chair. In, in terms of the points that you make I’ve nothing to add to those.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Stephen and Helena. Derek, did you want to come back in at all?

Derek Yule 
No, I think that that's fine, Andrew. Thank you.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks.
Any other questions or queries around, I mean Derek’s covered those fairly substantively, obviously, but around the financial impact, and Helena’s given a very full answer as well. 
If not, I'm going to move on to this sort of…

Mike Neilson 
Andrew, can you hear me, Andrew, I 

Andrew Burns 
Sorry. I didn't see your hand.

Mike Neilson 
My hand is not working. My hand is not working. I can't. I think it may be the connectivity.

Andrew Burns 
Alright, go ahead. Go ahead.

Mike Neilson   30:30
Questions which, which maybe straddle the two issues we've had already. 
One is it's a very straightforward factual point which is about the head of legal, who took redundancy, who got redundancy, but as far as I see, I can't see anything in the report that refers to her post in the restructuring, so it will be, it will be quite helpful to understand exactly what restructuring was taking place in relation to that, that post. 
And the second is a is a rather broader question which is really looking not so much at the legal aspects of the, the process, but to the principles of public life, notably selflessness, integrity, and objectivity. 
My reading of the audit report was, was to the effect that those principles were not respected in this area, but I would be grateful really for comment by both the controller and the auditor on that point.

Andrew Burns 
OK. Thanks, Mike. So a couple of questions around the solicitor’s post, Helena, and the application of the Nolan principles.

Helena Gray   32:01
Thank you. I'll just come to the, to the head of legal, which I think is the role that, that Mike is referring to. So the form… the head of legal and administration was Elaine Galletly, but subsequently she became the director of legal and administration after the solicitor's departure in April 2021, but then she subsequently left the Council's employment in 20, in September 2023.
And it's set out in paragraph 4.6.3 of the, of the Brodies report there. 
And if I just come to the, to the Nolan principles, so exhibit two of my report sets out the 9 Nolan principles of public life. And as Mike's already mentioned, the independent inquiry concludes, and as I've already mentioned, that they did not find any evidence allowing them to conclude that any recipient of any severance or retirement package or any other officer acted improperly, but do consider that the actions of Council officers could reasonably give rise to the criticism that they did not act with selflessness or objectivity in approving the restructure reports. 
I think what's clear is that the lack of a clear document trail has meant that in piecing the puzzle together, there are areas of factual disputes, such as when and how elected members were informed, and approvals are implied through correspondence, and officers have different views on whether approval was being given or whether simply confirming that policies had been followed as I set out in my report. 
I think all of that means that it's difficult to give a definitive view on whether a clear breach has been made. However, looking at it the other way, there is an absence of a clear demonstration that the Nolan principles have been applied, and so I can certainly see why the public would view this as a breach of the Nolan principles, and in particular, I think the lack of political scrutiny and the involvement of only one independent individual in the opera… in the consideration of the restructure paper does give rise to questions around selflessness and objectivity, which should have been demonstrably considered. 
Stephen, I don't know if you want to come in and add to that.

Stephen Reid   34:37
Thank you Helena. Just to add in relation to the question around the Nolan principles, you'll note from my annual audit report on the 23/24 audit that on page 64 there, it's my judgement that there was an absence of clear demonstration of the application of the Nolan principles in the restructure, and I particularly draw attention to the principle of selflessness and objectivity. 
I mean, in my view, and very much aligned to the controller, at its heart here is the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate transparency, good governance and scrutiny of the decisions taken, together with the absence of being able to demonstrate the consideration of value for money, together with the points in relation to the demonstration of the Nolan principles.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks very much, Stephen. Mike, you OK with that, and I mean very, very clear answers there I thought?

Mike Neilson   35:39
Only really on the, on the head of, the head of legal, I'm still confused by it. Is her redundancy, director or head of legal, part of the restructuring package that, that we've been considering? I just don't see the, I don't see either of those posts referred to as receiving redundancy.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Mike. Helena?

Helena Gray   36:16
Yeah, I’ll bring in the team just to double check, actually, that I'm articulating this as clearly as I can.
I suppose, Mike, can I just confirm, because obviously there is a challenge of tracking through the different roles, but the former head of legal and administration subsequently became the director of legal and administration. And then left the Council's employment in September 2023 receiving unreduced access to her SPS pension and a redundancy payment. 
But Rachel, perhaps if I turn to you just to see if there's anything further that that you can add that might help clarify this for Mike.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Helena. Rachel?

Rachel Wynne   37:07
Thanks, Helena. Thanks, chair. I think you've covered it Helena. So the head of legal was, so obviously she inherited the post of director of legal and administration and then was the 5th individual listed within the restructure report in terms of leaving in September 23, so that's how it all links and that's to do with the bump redundancy as well, going back to the first question that we had.

Andrew Burns   37:32
OK. Thanks, Rachel. Thanks, Helena. I'm going to move on if that's OK, Mike, because it leads into the next theme actually, which I think in both Helena’s and Stephen’s responses was touched on, that's member oversight and I think, Malcolm, you wanted to ask a query around that broad area.

Malcolm Bell   37:53
Yes, thank you, chair. This was an area I was particularly interested in. I think we have to accept that there is no evidence that the Members, councillors, were formally or informally consulted on any of these redundancies or departures.
But… having, having said that, is it unreasonable for me to have expected councillors, the non-execs if you like, particularly those holding senior positions, to have been more aware, to have been perhaps a bit more inquisitive, to sniff the wind a bit more? I mean, you know, do councillors not have a duty to be inquisitive? Bearing in mind and I accept they weren't formally, or informally consulted. Thanks.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Malcolm. It's a pretty big question.
Helena.

Helena Gray   38:55
Thanks, Malcolm. And I'll probably just start by reiterating just a couple of points. So as I've already mentioned, the question of Member oversight and when Members were made aware is an area of factual dispute, as outlined in the Brodies report.
They conclude that there is no evidence showing when precisely senior elected members became aware of, in general terms, the proposals for service reform contained within the restructure report. The former chief exec has stated that the Council leader and the relevant committee members were made aware of the appropriate time, but Brodies conclude that they found no evidence that elected members were asked to approve the restructure report or individual applications for severance or early retirement, and that there's no evidence to suggest that they had any knowledge prior to the publication of the packages in the Council's accounts. 
I suppose in terms of that, that question over inquiring. I think it's important to note, as I already have, that it's not the departure of the officers that's the issue here, it's the exit packages and their approval that is the subject of my report.
And I suppose while staff and Members may have been aware of departures, I've no reason to believe that the terms of the exit packages would have been known beyond those that I've referred to within my report. 
Again, I'll bring in Stephen and Rachel to see if they've got anything further to add, but it is worth highlighting that the Finance and Audit Scrutiny Committee do receive a report on early retirement and voluntary redundancy. But that's normally done, I believe, at quite a high level and wouldn't necessarily have gone into, to all the detail. And there are obviously sensitivities around the subject matter and GDPR requirements as well. 
But perhaps I'll bring in Stephen and Rachel just I suppose to offer some of their own insights on what they've observed of member scrutiny in this area as well. Thanks.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Helena. Stephen, Rachel?

Stephen Reid   41:08
Yeah, thanks. Yeah. So I mean, in relation to member scrutiny, particularly through the lens of the Finance and Audit Scrutiny Committee, we've witnessed, you know, a good degree of debate and discussion clearly within the confines of the parameters which Helena sets out in terms of the high level nature of the information, which is necessarily provided, and the GDPR considerations. So in relation to that you know there's no concerns that I would raise at this stage.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Stephen. Ruth, did you want to come back in on that area?

Ruth MacLeod   41:44
Yes, I just wanted to ask if there was a bit more of a sense now that there are better processes in place to involve elected Members going forward, particularly as well in terms of identifying issues that are likely to have a kind of political element to them. So I think it was quite clear looking at this that there was obviously going to be a public interest in that level of departures and payments associated with those departures. And for me there's a bit of a concern about the failure to identify that that was something that elected Members needed to be aware of and needed to be briefed on and have a part in making decisions around.
So has, has that improved in terms of perhaps the culture of Council officers understanding the need to identify when Members need to be brought into these discussions in future.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Ruth. Helena, Stephen or Rachel.

Helena Gray   42:41
Yeah. Thank you. I'll bring Stephen in again I suppose to talk more generally about member scrutiny and the wider observations I suppose that they've made in the, in the annual audit report, but a couple of points that I would highlight. 
I think, first of all, the Council have accepted the recommendations made by auditors in the annual audit report, including changes to the, to the scheme of delegations. So I think you know, there's demonstration that they are taking the matters seriously and auditors will review those actions. 
I also think the Council's decision to undertake an independent review into the circumstances is welcome too.
I think in terms of the Nolan principles, I think it's a really important opportunity for us all to remind public officials about expectations under the Nolan principles. And I note that Glasgow City Council is putting in place arrangements to enhance and monitor awareness understanding and application of the Council's governance rules across senior management and leadership teams, which will also be extended to include the employees code of conduct with appropriate training and communication carried out with employees across the Council family. So I think in terms of that wider awareness raising and scrutiny, and again, I think that's something that we will continue to keep an eye on. 
But Stephen, do you want to come in and talk more generally about member and officer scrutiny and any other observations you might want to make.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Helena, Stephen?

Stephen Reid   44:33
Yes, thank you, Helena. Yes, I mean, I suppose in terms of the Member scrutiny, I mean overall we take the view that there is a reasonable level of scrutiny from Members at the Finance and Audit Scrutiny Committee. 
There are clearly some areas which could be further enhanced. There was a self-assessment undertaken relatively recently, and that did highlight that, you know, the recruitment of independent Members to that committee would be helpful. However, the Council has experienced challenges with that recruitment. 
They're also, while you know there's a reasonable level of scrutiny, there does remain scope, I believe, to deliver further training to support members, particularly in fulfilling some of the more specialist or technical or dealing with the more specialist or technical matters which they necessarily will consider through that committee.

Andrew Burns  45:30
Yeah. Thanks, Helena and Stephen for those responses. Thanks Malcolm and Ruth for the queries. 
Unless either of you want to come back, I'm going to move on to the next sort of theme, I think Carol you had a couple of questions around the Brodies investigation and also some of the best value implications. Carol?

Carol Evans   45:49
Yep. So my first question is really the sort of reasons behind why the people made redundant were not invited or able to participate in the investigation as they were, one was approving one’s and the other one was approving the other’s. So quite, if my understanding's correct, so quite key to the decisions and the decision trail. 
So it's understanding why they were not involved. And the other one was really who was involved in creating and signing off the governance arrangements and scheme of delegation and policies around the redundancy and early retirement because it says that the policies were correctly followed. But it's just understanding who created those policies in the kind of first place. 
And also in terms of the sign off, in other bodies, pension strain arrangements often have to be signed off by Scottish Government, so at a much more senior level. So it's what is the, what would normally happen in a Council or local authority for this type of spend approval.
Because its, it's well over the 100,000 AO template level. So it's, what would normally happen and is what's happened in Glasgow any different from what we would normally expect in that scheme of delegation.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks very much, Carol. Helena.

Helena Gray   47:04
Thanks. So I'll just start with the investigation. I suppose really the scope of the investigation conducted by Brodies and the terms in which the review was conducted was a matter for Brodies and the Council. 
But I, for my purpose, I felt that the findings of the report were sufficiently clear to enable lessons to be learned and improvement actions to be identified, while noting that there were some areas of potential disputes, but I felt that the report, as I say and the auditors conclusions on that, were sufficiently clear to produce my statutory report. 
In terms of the scheme of, delegation, I suppose I'd make a couple of points. Firstly, obviously it's within, you know, the local devolve... democratic process that the Councils have the, have the authorities to approve their expenditure. 
And I'd also highlight that obviously the scheme of delegation cannot cover every decision making requirement for the Council, which is why it includes a general provision to consider whether a matter may be politically controversial, even though it has been specifically delegated to them, to consult with the appropriate city convener. 
And obviously, in this case, while, while what might be deemed to be politically controversial is a matter of judgement, I think there could have been a reasonable expectation that departures of senior officers under such exit arrangements could have been considered politically controversial and therefore elected Members should have been consulted. 
In terms of the approval process for the scheme of delegation. The scheme of delegation is regularly reviewed and amended, but it's approved with full council, so as a result, there were, there have been a couple of different versions of the scheme of delegation throughout the period in question, but those were, any changes to the scheme of delegation, as I say, would have been approved by the full Council. 
Stephen, Rachel, I don't know if you've anything further to add on either of those points.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Helena. Steven, Rachel, anything?.

Stephen Reid   49:33
Thank you, Helena. Thank you, chair. 
I guess the only thing, two things I would add in relation to the scheme of delegation being subject to full Council approval and the various iterations of that, as Helena talked about is correct. Clearly in the local authority, the application of the scheme of delegation, you know, that's one of the, key responsibilities of any monitoring officer, and I do understand that the Council's policy on early retirement did take cognisance of the Scottish Government's policy with a cap of 95,000 on redundancy strain on the fund. I'm not really aware of the caps there.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Stephen. Thanks Helena. Carol, are you OK? Do you want to come back again?

Carol Evans 
No, that was helpful. Thank you. It's just I, I suppose I'm still grappling with why it didn't go higher, but as you, I think you've answered kind of why it's, it still remains an unanswered question for me. I don't think you've got the answer so the question still remains unanswered. Thank you.

Andrew Burns   50:40
Yeah. Thanks Carol. 
Colleagues unless there’s anything else on that sort of broad area, the next sort of penultimate area I had was Nolan principles. 
And Mike, you've already, and others have already touched on this. Is there anything further that we want to ask on the application of the Nolan principles. Mike.

Mike Neilson   50:59
Thanks.
It was more about the general aspects of respect for Nolan, where I think there's lots of very useful recommendations in the, in Helena's report.
But it feels like a particularly important element of this, and one I guess specific question is I was struck by the point about political, political controversy being a reason for, for consulting members. 
I wonder what you what, what Helena and Stephen's views would be on whether the issue of significant issues in relation to respect to the Nolan principles should also be cross cutting a reason to consult. 
Because most of the material we see, we're seeing here is about making sure that this, this particular type of episode does not happen, but we're always in danger of, as it were, legislation for the previous rather than the next issue. So I wonder whether a really broad thing would be a good idea to ensure that where there is doubt and that this this obviously relates primarily to the chief executive, because that's where the conflicts would normally be reserved, resolved, whether there should be something more systematic to cut across schemes of delegation in these circumstances.

Andrew Burns 
OK. Thanks Mike. Helena.

Helena Gray   53:10
Thanks. I mean, I mean I think, I think the Nolan principles are, should and should be embedded within public life. That is the very principle of the Nolan principles, I'd argue. And they are in, they are embedded in, you know, the code of conduct of the Council etcetera. 
I think in terms of that… I would, I would argue in this case, the absence of a clear document trail that documents the application of the Nolan principles is the challenge here. So. So noting that there might have been a conflict of interest there, that would call into question the integrity, how was that considered and how was that documented and the decision therefore to seek or not seek member approval? But I would, I believe that the Nolan principles are and should be embedded across public life and that's a very, that's a very basis on which they are made.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Helena. Malcolm, apologies, I overlooked the fact that I think you also had a query in follow up potentially to Carol's around best value implications. Apologies, I misread my notes there.

Malcolm Bell   54:30
No, no problem at all, chair. Yeah. And it really is just a bit of a follow on from Carol and a general question because the annual audit report grades vision and leadership as red. And it says the Council was unable to demonstrate value for money in respect of early exit packages. But it also says that the Council has the key elements in place to deliver best value. So I just wondered if you can reconcile those, those two statements. 
And you know what progress in general terms are the Council making and what confidence can the Commission take in, in the progress they're making towards rectifying these weaknesses., 
Thanks.

Andrew Burns 
OK. Thanks Malcolm.

Helena Gray   55:25
Thanks and I'll bring Stephen in in a moment just to talk about the, I suppose, the detail and the judgments within the annual audit report. But I think just a couple of general points. 
Obviously the auditors conclusions in relation to the governance transparency and decision making in respect of the five senior officers are highlighted there in the red assessment. But best value does go wider than just those issues as well. And obviously some of the other issues that are highlighted in the annual audit report relating to financial sustainability challenges, the need to strengthen performance manage…. performance reporting are not unique to Glasgow as well. 
But I'll bring in Stephen to talk a little bit more about the judgments and the progress that the Council's making on best value. I suppose noting that this is also an area that I intend to come back to in due course.
Stephen, over to you.

Stephen Reid   56:29
Sure. And thank you, Helena. So in terms of the best value judgement, I think it's important to say that certainly we highlight the key principles of best value are in place as is noted in, in the question and within page six of my annual audit report we highlight, we do draw out within the best value area and highlight the specific concerns that we have raised elsewhere in the report regarding the governance, scrutiny and transparency in respect of the five senior officers, which is subject to the section 102 report today.
Clearly, the nature of best value and the wider scope dimensions and the reporting that takes place in relation to that means that there are inherently key matters such as this one which do cross over into a number of different areas in terms of the judgements made.
My judgement was that this matter was primarily an example of a failure in governance and transparency and decision making, and hence how it was positioned within the report. So I was content with the overall conclusion and judgement in relation to best value and particularly because I do draw out within the best value section the exception of this matter. 
Moving on then, chair, if I may, to the progress that the Council has, is making. The Council has already taken a number of procedural steps and we saw evidence of that in our attendance at meetings around the time this report was being considered earlier in the year. 
I also think it's worth highlighting to the Commission that, in terms of my engagement and observation of one, how the report and this matter was dealt with in terms of taking the legal advice, legally privileged advice in public, did I think as Helena’s pointed out, demonstrate a commitment by the new chief executive and senior team to increase transparency around this matter. And certainly in the engagement that I've had with the new chief executive then that commitment continues in terms of determination to drive forward the recommendations which I've made and also to focus on the work that's required to refresh or embed a revised and refreshed culture within the organisation to address some of the matters that arose here.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks very much. Stephen, Helena. That's all really helpful. Malcolm. OK, to move on?

Malcolm Bell 
Yeah, thanks, chair. That's fine. Thank you.

Andrew Burns  59:11
Thanks, Malcolm. And so I think we've covered the Nolan principles. That leads us then colleagues to the last sort of area of inquiry that we wanted to pursue and that was around lessons to learn. 
And Andy, you had a couple of queries on this broad area to finish off on. Andy.

Andrew Cowie   59:31
Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Yeah, and thank you for the papers. 
Two areas that I'm really going to want to concentrate on and that I suppose is captured in the maxim prevention is better than cure, which tends to help us in the public sector in Scotland. 
So if you look at cure first of all and I'm really grateful for both the controller’s and the audit team's thoughts and perspectives on this. 
The Brodies report, which is based upon King's Council, opinion tells us that the Council acted unlawfully, but not any officer, but that there was no likelihood of any hope of redress by judicial review. So I'm thoughtful about what does that actually say about sanctions against similar behaviour in the future in any local authority, because I'm mindful that there's been no pecuniary or non-pecuniary individual or corporate consequences or penalty for a local authority acting unlawfully around that. So that, you know, that's kind of looking at the cure and trying to encourage people not to do or act in this way. 
But that really, you know, I think it's so fundamental for us as a Commission to consider this because the potential impact on public trust and confidence in public servants and the decisions they make, significant impact both an officer and member reputation, but that trust and confidence is something that is easily lost and hard gained, so that's why I'm conscious that there's no penalty here. 
The second aspect of it is more looking at the prevention thing. I think. Helena, you’ve really helpfully for us, pulled out in paragraph 46 of your report, a list of key things that need to be done in the ‘now what’ aspect of this. And I think that's really, really helpful for us. 
But I'm also mindful that you go on in paragraph 48 and remind the Commission that we've already put 2 reports out about this, albeit the last one was in 2003, but that then kind of brings me to my second question, which is how can we, and this is where your advice and perspective is important for us, how can we, as a Commission, make it less likely that something like this is repeated and that we're not just repeating reports after reports around this, but we can make it so financially or just so procedurally suboptimal that no local authority would consider acting in this way in the future, unlawfully ultra vires as it were. 
So that's two aspects. One is the penalty and one is the, so how do we as a Commission actually stop this coming back to us? I hope that's clear.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Andy. Helena.

Helena Gray   1:02:35
Thanks and both really big questions as well I suppose and particularly that, that second one and you know, not wanting to stray into policy discussions there either. But I suppose just taking the first question around the conclusions that Brodies reached around sanctions. And I think it's important to highlight that in paragraph 10.7.3 of the Brodies report, they do conclude that in principle, an application for judicial review in respect of the Council's decision to approve the former chief executive’s application for early retirement would be competent, because any such application would be aimed at the lawfulness of the Council's decision. But in this particular case, the statutory 3 month time limit has now passed and Brodies also outline a number of other factors that they believe that the court would also need to consider, including that she received no more than she was entitled to, under the local government pension scheme regulations, so that in this case, there isn't an avenue to explore. 
So they believe that any judicial review in this case would have poor prospects of success. But I think it is important to be clear that that it's not that there isn't, that that wouldn't be the avenue to explore, it's just it's their conclusions that in this case there would be poor prospects of success. 
I think it's also worth to highlight that Brodies did also consider in Section 9 and 10 of the report, whether in acting, whether officers acted contrary to the Council's code of conduct, which incorporates the Nolan principles and therefore whether there's a claim for breach of contact… contract. 
They note that there is a potential breach of the Council's corporate code of conduct but that it's beyond the scope of the investigation to reach a conclusion on what the consequences of such a breach may have been. And obviously they also conclude that attempts to challenge and recover sums now paid back wouldn't be unlikely to be successful. But again, I think it's important to note that those, those steps are, are available. 
I think going then to the second part of the question about that learning the lessons. As you've highlighted, I think it's really important that the lessons are learnt. I think they are applicable to all across the public sector and in, in paragraph 46 of my report, I set out those wider lessons in relation to considering the decision making processes, how they reflect the Nolan principles of public life, whether they're subject to appropriate officer and councillor scrutiny, and how there… and whether there is appropriate training and monitoring to support that. And I'd be very happy to speak to the Commission about how we might further disseminate those. I think the crucial lesson here is that the lack of a document, a documentation trail that sets out the decision making process has led to the discussion that we are having here today, which I hope is a salient reminder for us all. 
But Stephen, anything further that you would like to add on either of those points?

Stephen Reid   1:06:13
I think on the… sorry chair, I think on the latter point. Firstly, my view would be that clearly schemes of delegation and policies and procedures are an absolute necessary part of a robust governance process.
But at the end of the day, it is impossible to write the rules and the procedures that will cover every eventuality, and therefore, while you can have robust rules and policies and procedures, there is also a need for overarching principles to apply and hence I think, you know, as the, within the Council's scheme of delegation, the element of requiring a judgement for something that may be politically controversial to be escalated did rely on officer judgement. 
So I would say that the reinforcement of the Nolan principles, I think is a very important element for consideration in terms of, you know, if there is no rule then you need to turn to the principles, and the principles, the Nolan principles. I think serve that function very well.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Steven. Andy did you want to come back in? And Carol, I see you had your hand up as well, but Andy first.

Andrew Cowie   1:07:31
Yeah, I'm going to try and get you to pin your colours to the mast here around. I absolutely get the point around principles, which is well worth us considering. 
The other aspect is around guidance to auditors in the annual guidance around specifically checking that so yeah, we trust it's been done, but we also want to verify that schemes of delegation around redundancy have been properly formulated in all local authorities. 
I want to see your views around would that prevent us having to come back and discussing this in relation to another local authority in subsequent years.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Andy. Helena, can you help with that?

Helena Gray   1:08:21
I think I'm not sure I'm willing to nail my colours to the mast on that. I'd be interested in Stephen's perspective as well. I mean, I think it's important that schemes of delegation, you know, are set locally.
Stephen has said it's, it would be difficult to cover all eventualities in, in delegation, which is why the general principles and indeed the general principles of Nolan  public life apply. 
Stephen. I don't know if you've got any additional thoughts that you'd want to or whether you're more prepared to nail your colours to the mast than I am.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks Helena. Stephen.

Stephen Reid   1:09:03
No, I think I'm going to take the same approach as you, Helena, I'm not going to nail my colours to the mast. However, I think it is important to note that I think Brodies note in in their report that there's no suggestion that any officers acted improperly and the key element here in terms of the unlawfulness was the, the route through which the chief executive’s early retirement was approved. 
I think the circumstances here are, as I said, you know, at its heart here is that there was an absence of sufficient and robust evidence to demonstrate the transparency, the good governance and the scrutiny that would be expected, you know, for a local authority of the decisions taken. And there was also, as we've talked about the you know, the absence to demonstrate, you know, the consideration of value for money.
So when I, when I, when I look at the, you know what's at the heart of the section 102 report and the matters drawn out in my annual audit report, together with no suggestion that any officers acted improperly and the rest of the conclusions linked to that within, within the Brodies report. Then, it's difficult, other than you know, ensuring that robust policies and procedures and a control framework and a governance framework are in place and local authorities, and then, importantly, that embedded within the culture is that application of the Nolan principles.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Stephen. I see Derek’s got his hand up, we're going to go to Carol first, I know Carol had her hand up earlier. I'm not sure if you want to come in, Carol, still, and then I'll go to Derek.

Carol Evans 
I think I won't ask it actually, so I'm OK. Thank you.

Andrew Burns 
That’s fine, Carol, thanks. Derek. And I'll just check you’re fine Andy with those responses. Derek.

Derek Yule   1:10:51
Yeah. Thank. I was just to follow. It's really something that Stephen’s said and I suppose it's we need to look at this from kind of different perspectives I guess. 
On one hand what you said is no officer acted improperly. But at the same time, you mentioned under the scheme of delegation, there's a need for assort of judgement, and I suppose the difficulty I have with this case is the political judgement that some key officers made in this process but seem to.
Under the scheme of delegation they seem to have the ability to make the decisions and sign off on redundancies, without any recourse to polit… So I suppose I'm just trying to tease maybe, and Andy's point about lessons learned, is there something there that you acknowledge, there has to be a degree of political judgement in a lot of decisions officers will take in the course of their work. In this case, it seems to me so obvious that there was a lack of political judgement displayed by a number of officers in this process. So I'm wondering it’s something that I'm going to mull over in terms of lessons learned as to whether there's something we maybe need to be, in terms of making recommendations,. as to be more specific than we perhaps have been up to now, and what Helena’s outlined in terms of previous reports.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Derek. I'm not sure there's much more Helena will be able to add but it does link back to Malcolm's earlier points about member oversight as well, I feel. But Helena.

Helena Gray   1:12:25
Yeah. Thank you. I suppose it probably is worth coming back a little bit just to talk to set out the approval process around the chief exec’s exit. So, because I'm conscious that we haven't sort of walked through that. So maybe just if I can indulge you just for a minute with that.
So Brodies highlight that there was no specific provision for the approval of the early retirement or sever… severance of the chief exec under the scheme of delegation. And we've already talked about, you know, the challenge of a scheme of delegation covering every eventuality, but that seems like an obvious lesson to learn.
The former chief exec made a statement to the independent review in which she believed the delegation scheme delegated approval to the executive director of finance and the head of human resources, and that approval had been given by those post holders.
Brodies note, however, that those post holders did not consider that they were formally approving the application of early retirement, but were checking the application was consistent with the relevant policies. Either way, however, Brodies conclude that the chief exec retirement could not be approved by another executive director, but that the scheme requires officers to consult with the appropriate city convener if they believe the matter may be political, politically controversial, which, as we've said is a is a matter of judgement, but I would share the view that the retirement of the chief exec on efficiency grounds could reasonably fall into that, and councillors don't appear to have been approved, and that's… consulted… And that's what has led the Brodies to the conclusion that the retirement was not lawfully approved in terms of the scheme of delegation.
So I think this comes back to the very heart of the lack of a documentation trail, in this case explaining the rationale, how, who was respon… what the decision making process would be, how conflicts of interest would be managed and ultimately what approvals were being given by whom. And again there's a there's a conclusion in the Brodies report that the approvals process was overly casual. So again, the fact that approvals are implied by correspondence in this case again has led some of the some of the discussion that we're having today and again feels like an important lesson to learn that in this case, in cases such as these, approvals shouldn't have to be implied. They should be clearly documented.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks very much. That's all really useful. And sorry Andy, did you want to come back or are you OK?

Mike Neilson 
Andrew.
It's Mike, I'm, I can't use my hand, so I…. 

Andrew Burns 
Right.
I'm sorry I didn't catch it. Catch it.

Mike Neilson   1:15:37
If I’m being rude, apologies. I suppose it's this discussion takes you to the striking conclusion that that it it's the absence of documentation that makes it impossible to make a judgement about whether Nolan principles have been fulfilled and other things. 
So is there a case for changing the burden of proof so you have to demonstrate in a binding way that that those things have been properly considered and the absence of information does not frustrate the proper understanding.
You know, does not frustrate the appropriate consequences.

Andrew Burns 
Thanks, Mike. I mean, Helena, I’m not sure there’s much else can add to that? And these are certainly all things that we as a Commission collectively need to consider really carefully when we have our private discussion following this session this morning.

Helena Gray   1:16:35
Yeah, I think I would, I would just sort of conclude by saying that you know that that documentation trail that that we've referenced is lacking in this case. It’s you know it's key to being able to draw conclusions around good governance, accountability and transparency, which as I've said are important for public bodies to demonstrate in, in, in, in cases, all of these cases.

Andrew Burns 
OK. Thanks, Helena. Thanks, Mike, Derek and thanks Andy for all those queries. 
Carol very final point. I'm conscious of time.

Carol Evans   1:17:10
It was just saying so. Lack of a paper trail which is poor practice is causing poor practice not to have penalty. Is that kind of what the conclusion to what you're saying is?
Because lack of paper trail means that Brodie can't come to the conclusions that that we don't we, there's a lot of information we don't know and we can't go to judicial review for the reasons you outlined. But there's also a lot of things we don't know, so.
Is and lack of a paper trail is poor practice, but the lack of the paper trail to Mike's point is meaning that we don't have the evidence to maybe bring to say this, this, this there should be any penalties. Do you see what I mean?

Andrew Burns 
Helena is there anything you want to add?

Helena Gray   1:18:01
I mean, I think I'd, I'd come back to my earlier response that I think there is enough evidence outlined both in the auditor’s report and the Brodies investigation to enable clear conclusions to be drawn and lessons to be learned.

Andrew Burns  1:18:18
Thanks so much Helena. I'm going to draw to a close colleagues if that's OK, because we have given that a very full and frank discussion for just over an hour. Thanks for keeping to helping me keep that rough timetable.
Thanks to all Commission colleagues for their questions and particularly thanks to Helena, Stephen and Rachel for responding to such a wide-ranging and deep set of queries. 
So we're going to conclude this session section of the meeting just now, but just a reminder for who's watching the call that when we move on later on the agenda in private to item 10, we'll come back to discuss all of this as a Commission based on the dialogue we've just had with officers now and will make a decision on the way forward. And in due course, that will be obviously made public. 
But I'll have a very brief pause just while we get the chair back in to take over the rest of the meeting and bring Angela back on the call remotely. But thanks again, colleagues for all the questions and particular thanks to Helena, Stephen and Rachel.

Jo Armstrong   1:19:50
Thanks Andrew. 
So I think we’re now on item 6, the local government policy update, another good summary, Joe.
Over to you.

Joe Chapman   1:20:01
Thanks, Jo. I'll keep this brief. The obviously the report covers a 2 month period. So quite a lot in there albeit some of that time, obviously summer recess time. A few things happened in June which I think even I had forgotten about when I came to produce the report.
Just wanted to reiterate the process that's under way in terms of the consultation from the local government committee around their pre-budget scrutiny work, which is asking a range of questions mainly relating to sort of transformation and service reform and then a few specific questions for the for the Commission following up on our transformation report last year.
So we are working on a on a draft response and while not a formal action in the paper, we do propose that responsibility for the sign off of that response is delegated to the chair, the deputy chair and also the sponsors of that transformation report last week, so I just wanted to flag that up to Members for attention, but happy to take any other questions.
Thank you. Any questions for Joe.
Thanks, Jo. Angela.

Angela Leitch   1:21:06
Yeah, thanks, Jo. And yeah, a really good report as ever. Lots of information. 
I wondered if there's any further updates on paragraph 7. There's a reference to the desire to move to further contact time or less contact time, I should say, for teachers. Do you know Joe if there's been any benchmarking on that, thinking about other the other three nations, England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Joe Chapman  1:21:41
I'm not aware either way to be honest as to whether that's being looked at. Obviously the reduction in contact time is a Scottish Government policy.
And yeah, it's obviously been various kind of back and forth as to delivering that and the and the funding implications but I'm not, I'm not aware if that's been based on or informed by benchmarking or not.

Angela Leitch 
And has there been any further updates on a move towards that reduction?

Joe Chapman 
I'm not aware of any updates beyond what's stated in the report, but it's definitely something that I will follow up on for next month's report.

Angela Leitch 
Thank you.

Jo Armstrong 
Derek.

Derek Yule   1:22:18
Thanks, chair. Just a just a quick question out of interest more than anything.
Paragraph six about the two year pay award for councils. Has the Scottish Government put any funding into that or is it Councils funding that themselves? Because I certainly notice the point that you make in the paragraph that's above the level of funds that councils have budgeted for.

Joe Chapman 
It doesn't spring to mind what the end kind of result of that was. Obviously this year has been a case where the agreement’s been made between COSLA and the unions. It hasn't gone, you know, to the length of time and the process that we've seen in recent years. And it is obviously beyond public sector pay policy and we do know that the percentage pay rise is more than what most, at least, councils had budgeted for.
I'm not, I don't think, I don't believe there's any funding been provided specifically by the government in that case because their sort of position is that it's a matter for COSLA and the unions to agree between themselves. 
I don't think it's got to that stage as it has in recent years.

Derek Yule 
Thanks Joe.

Jo Armstrong   1:23:29
Thanks. Thanks, Derek. Any other questions for Joe on that paper?
No, again, if there's any follow up questions you think, subsequent to this session, no doubt Joe will be very happy to talk you through and speak to you about it.
Takes us to item 7 chairs update. So what have I been doing over the summer period? Well, it feels as if it's just disappeared overnight. I've been fairly busy. I want to point out or kind of focus in on two or three things because I think our consultation exercise has triggered quite a lot of discussion and debate. A couple of sessions I've been at, particularly with COSLA and Solace.
There's a desire to engage. There's a desire to tell us what things that are working well and also a wish for us to help them in terms of priorities. So a couple of things I want to pick up then are around… the…
All our reports that we produce are picked up by all Councils to some extent.
More important than others, so section 102 reports are used and read by all councils. I think that's a good sign.
Whatever, whatever the report’s about they are of value and people do look at them. There's a desire as we say in our reports for councils to prioritise and a desire for councils to hear from us where we think priorities might be. And whilst I'm not sure we can do that fully, I think it's important and incumbent upon us to then when we’re writing recommendations to think are there any key priorities? Because otherwise it comes across as everything's a priority from us. I think it's a good a good challenge back. 
There's also a desire for us to share good practice. So I think our case study work is beginning to have that effect or beginning to have that sort of focus on it. Again utilising what evidence or what intelligence we get to help inform the rest of the sector on good practice.
Forthcoming consultations I want to pick up on are we’re meeting the DOFs tomorrow. We've got a session with the Alliance, the third sector representative bodies on Monday. We're meeting with IJB chief officers on Friday.
We are meeting with COSLA President and Vice President at the end of the month and then I think Moray Council themselves have asked for some sort of consultation discussions. 
So we are engaging and that engagement is being taken positively. The extent to which that then feeds through to our work programme it’s really important that we do reflect what people are telling us what our stakeholders are telling us as to where they want our focus and our efforts to go. 
I'm happy to pick up any questions any Members may have on any of that or in the paper that went up on item 7.
But if there are no questions, that's equally fine and I'll move on to agenda item 8 which is business to be discussed in public. Do members have any other business they wish to discuss in public?
No. So on that basis I’ll ask Lee to stop the recording.

   1:26:46