Accounts Commission March 2026 public session
Part 1

Jo Armstrong 0:05
Welcome to today's meeting of the Accounts Commission, which is being held in Edinburgh. 
The public session for today is being recorded as normal and the recording will be made available via the Accounts Commission website as soon as possible and is available on request in the interim. 
Members of the public are also welcome to observe the public session of the Commission meeting on the day. 
Those who are watching this morning, thank you for taking the time to join us. You are here to observe, however, and not participate, and therefore your camera and microphone are already off.
I'd like to say I could welcome Rob Simpson, I'm expecting him to be joining us from Aberdeenshire Council but has not yet made it here and I suspect it might be something to do with the train problems in Edinburgh today. And I appreciate his attempt to come here given the council's having a full meeting which we are clashing with so apologies for, for that too. 
I'd also like to welcome colleagues from Aberdeenshire Council who are watching online and along with Clackmannanshire and Stirling IJB colleagues who are watching online today. Thank you for taking the time because I know this is a busy period for you all. 
Please note that the meeting chat function is not in use. If you experience any technical issues, please contact our support colleagues separately via Teams or email to the address given in the calendar invite. 
Commission members please ensure you keep your camera on throughout the meeting, but keep your microphone on mute. For others participating in the meeting online please keep your camera off and your microphone on mute except when it is your item.
Coming now to item 1. Apologies for absence, Sarah.

Sarah Watters 1:49
No apologies for absence, chair.

Jo Armstrong 1:52
Item 2 then is declarations of connections. Can I ask any members who have any connection or interest regarding any items on today's agenda to please state the connection or interest and whether they consider it material enough to keep them, to meet, to need to recuse themselves from the meeting?
So, Carol.

Carol Evans
I'd like to declare an interest because I'm on another professional body that gets audited when we start talking about the procurement and audit paper, but I don't see it material, so I can stay in the room.

Jo Armstrong
Jennifer.

Jennifer Henderson
The same as Carol.

Jo Armstrong
Angela.

Angela Leitch
Two connection. One in relation to item 6, the 102 report, I’ve previously worked in Clackmannanshire. And in relation to the procurement, I’m a member of another public body.

Jo Armstrong
Thank you. Nichola.

Nichola Brown
Also, same as Jennifer and Carol for item 13 on FPAM, I sit on the board of the Mental Welfare Commission, which is an audited body.

Jo Armstrong
Derek. 

Derek Yule
Yeah, thanks Chair. Item 5, Aberdeenshire Council, I was employed as head of finance for Aberdeenshire from about 2000 to 2011. The last couple of years would've been as a Section 95 officer. I think it's probably sufficiently long since I've left there that it’s nothing but just to note that. And also item 6, Clackmannanshire and Stirling, as an ex-employee of Clackmannanshire Council and current resident within Clackmannanshire, but again, I'm just really recording that. I don't believe it's material enough to exclude myself from them.

Jo Armstrong
Malcolm. 

Malcolm Bell
Thank you Chair. Transparency statement for item 5 and 11 as a council tax payer from Aberdeenshire. I don't think it’s material so I’ll remain in the room. And the usual one at item 13 for FPAM as a member of another public body.

Jo Armstrong 3:46
So that then takes us to item 3, order 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 10 to 15 in private for the reasons set out on the agenda. Are members agreed? 
[Agreed.] 
So item 4, minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting. Sarah.

Sarah Watters 4:06
Thanks, Chair. There were three actions from, arising from the last meeting. The first was in relation to the diversity and equality data for the Commission. We've checked that and members been sent an updated, an update on that. 
Members have sought an update on Scottish Government's additional support for learning review. There isn't any information yet, but Joe Chapman will keep members updated as information comes through. 
And finally, members have asked about the Commission's health and social care performance data that was published in February, and just maybe ensuring that we have, that we keep public awareness and sector awareness of that and our communications group, on which Nichola and Ruth sit, will be meeting either later this month or early April to discuss that and progress work in relation to that. 
I'm happy to take any comments or questions on the minute.

Jo Armstrong 5:00
Any errors, omissions? Agree to approve the minute.
So that takes us then to one of the substantial items for today's public session of the Commission, which is the best value in Aberdeenshire Council.
This is a statutory report by the Controller of Audit on best value on Aberdeenshire Council. Report draws attention to the findings from the Council's 24/25 annual audit report on how effectively it demonstrates best value. The Commission is invited to consider and endorse the Controller's report in this session. We will then consider later in private how we wish to proceed. The Controller and the auditor are here to provide any clarifications or answers to questions that members may have, both the Controller's report and the annual audit, annual audit report as it relates to best value. Welcome both. Helena, I'll hand up to you.

Helena Gray 6:02
Thank you and good morning everybody. And I welcome the opportunity to discuss my best value report in Aberdeenshire Council with the Commission this morning. I'm delighted to be joined by Mark from Grant Thornton and my thanks to him and the audit team for all of their work on the reports that are here before us today. 
As my report highlights, Aberdeenshire Council demonstrates a continued commitment to delivering best value. It has improved how it articulates its strategic priorities, which are now set out in its new Council Plan, approved in June 2024, which is clear, concise and includes outcome and performance indicators. 
Auditors concluded that the council's overall governance arrangements are effective and enable transparent decision making, and auditors have consistently reported positively on the council's community engagement activities. 
The council has appropriate performance management arrangements in place to monitor and report on progress against its priorities, although auditors have highlighted that the presentation of key performance information could be improved to enable easier comparison between performance and targets. 
In terms of service level performance, auditors have highlighted, using Local Government Benchmark Framework indicators, that there has been a good level of improvement since base year, but in the most recent year more indicators declined than improved. 
Like many councils, Aberdeenshire is facing a significant future budget gap and my report highlights that our analysis suggests that when taken as a percentage of total revenue budgets, Aberdeenshire's budget gap is one of the largest in Scotland. The latest figure, which has been updated since my report as part of the budget discussions, is that this gap sits at 92.48 million to 2029/30. This figure is before any potential additional costs from the Integrated Joint Board are considered, which is also facing a significant funding gap. It's also important to highlight that the council's usable reserves are also relatively low in comparison to peer authorities. 
The council approved its transformation strategy in November 2023, which it subsequently updated this January, which sets out the whole vision, a vision for whole organisation change with projects helping to create future financial sustainability, supported by a transformation reserve. 
At the time of the audit, a number of projects were underway but most were still at an early stage and auditors highlighted inconsistencies in how expected financial and non-financial benefits have been qualified and the need for a systematic mechanism by which progress in realising savings can be monitored. 
The council has not clearly set out savings for each project, nor the timeline for achieving them. And in light of the significant financial pressures ahead, the council urgently needs to progress its transformation work, ensuring itself that it has clarity on its impacts, financial and non-financial, that planned savings are monitored and delivered, and that the plans are sufficiently ambitious to meet the challenges ahead. 
Pause there, but Mark and I will do our best to answer any questions. 

Jo Armstrong 9:04
Thank you. Can I just remind everyone that the sound effects are not great today. So can we speak up, speak loudly so that it gets caught in the, in the recording. Thank you. 
OK. As is normally the case, we have kind of organised our questioning around a number of lines of interest to us, a number of themes. And I will ask each, a lead, a lead question under each theme to start us off. So under overarching issues, I'll ask Carol to start us off.

Carol Evans 9:36
Thank you. And thank you for the report. And it's really good to see that the council in general seems to be well run, and meeting its performance improvement overall.
But that kind of leads to my question because there seems to be a disconnect with the seemingly very well-run council and the lack of progress on the transformation which you've highlighted, which is essential for the savings that they need going forward. So really my questions are around that. 
So there's a lot of actions that they had, that had been identified in the audit that had January 26 end dates. So it's just to understand the progress made, whether they were realistic, and given that the transformation seems to have been suspended due to the IJB financial pressures, whether those deadlines for January have actually been met, whether the transformation is now moving at the pace it needs to. 
And also there seems to be a disconnect between the governance of projects in the transformation space versus not in the transformation space. So it'd be understand whether that's, why that is, and whether the higher level of governance is slowing the transformation down or whether actually the other ones are just not following best practice. So to get an understanding there. 
And then also why, really, the savings haven't been made in the last year and whether you expect they have the ability to make the savings in the year coming. Thank you.

Helena Gray 11:11
There was a lot within that. And I'll, I'll attempt to cover off a broad level and bring Mark in to cover some of the specifics.
I think overall, as you've outlined and just on that governance point more generally, overall, the auditors have concluded that the council is well governed and has an understanding of what is happening across its services and that where it's identified areas of challenge such as the IJB, it is working with colleagues there. 
I think in terms of the governance and oversight of the transformation programme itself, the council has a programme management office which reports to the director of business services. It's got 5 different transformation themes and each of those is led by a chief officer; It then has a strategic change board with the chief exec and directors of finance, so there is clearly a governance structure around that transformation work.
But I think the issue that the auditors have highlighted is the lack of that performance data and how that is presented. And then the challenges that the council have had to set out the impact, both the financial and the non-financial, to enable that success measures to be, to be monitored and tracked. And I think that's an area auditors have highlighted. 
And while there is a RAG rating that is presented as part of the project management information, it's not clear on what basis those, those judgements are made. 
So those are all areas where the team have made recommendations for improvement. And I'll give Mark a moment to come in and say whether those recommendations have yet been taken forward. 
I think just to clarify on the transformation reserve, that was, as we highlighted, that was suspend… suspended while the financial challenges presented by the IJB were addressed. 
As I'm sure we'll come on to later, those challenges have improved, the position of the IJB has improved, and that suspension has now been lifted. 
But Mark, do you want to come in and talk a little bit more about the progress that has been made against those recommendations and then particularly a little bit more about the savings and the progress that has been made around those as well?

Mark Stocks 13:35
It's an interesting question, Commissioner. So, so councils are such large complex organisations, aren't they? So I don't think it's, I don't think you can equate, sort of, they're not successful in a particular area to their, their not being well governed. So, you know, my, my overall impression of Aberdeenshire is that it is well governed and tends to take the right decisions, and importantly for me, it tends to, responds appropriately to challenge. So if I'm kind of raising issues there, they listen and they, they respond. 
I think perhaps on transformation, it's perhaps their Achilles heel in terms of their being able to transform the council. Now, that's not that different to most councils that we work with, to be, to be candid. These are, these are difficult programmes to actually deliver and it requires quite a lot of corporate support as well as sort of directorates being willing to actually change. 
It's not that Aberdeenshire haven't done anything. There are a couple of projects that we highlight in terms of digital and children's homes that they've focused on. I know they're looking at schools as well in terms of well, how did they get to the right number of schools. Obviously that requires a level of consultation. 
Now that being said, I think they recognise that this isn't sort of the area that they've driven forward. So there's a revised transformation strategy that was brought in, in January 26. So it's very new, so they're changing approach in terms of moving to towards a more directorate-led transformation programme. 
So I think that, I think that’s appropriate, I think that will get more buy in, in terms of what they're trying to drive forward. That's going to be supported by the programme management office. There are some themes within that, some overarching work streams which are the ones that I think we'd all expect in terms of place, sort of big digital, estates. So that, that is a challenge for them. 
So, so they did have to pause the drive for savings from transformation. That was partially due to the challenge from the IJB. So, so they had to allocate some reserves so to the IJB because they had to underwrite its, its potential deficit. And I thought that was right and proper in the circumstances because that's probably one of their biggest transformation challenges in terms of driving that forward. 
So I do think in some ways that they're restarting the programme, but I don't think there, there's a lack of ambition or a lack of recognition that that's what they need to actually do.

Carol Evans
Thank you.

Andrew Burns 16:36
Thanks very much, Jo. And thanks Helena and Mark for the report and comments you've already given. I wondered if I could just follow up on Carol's point, particularly about the transformation reserve, which I think you both referenced. 
I mean to me there’s a common conundrum here that I think we're seeing a clear pattern of as Accounts Commission. You know, this is not dissimilar in some ways to the report we had, we saw from Shetland just recently where the council, as you said Mark is, it's being well run, there's good governance and good levels of service delivery and the council should be commended on that, and, in those respects, this is a positive report. 
But in other ways, I think you used the phrase, Helena, significant financial pressure, one of the most acute, acute in Scotland. And we saw in a different way the same sort of issue with Shetland and the issues of reserves and, you know, being depleted very quickly. 
And whilst there are good things happening here and it's important to recognise those, there's also a worrying sort of conundrum that over the longer, the medium to longer term, what's currently happening won't be sustainable. And I wonder if I can just press a little bit on the transformation reserve. It's good to hear that it's being used again, but I think paragraph 43 indicates that, in the covering report, indicates that more than 50% of it has been utilised already. And there's only £60 million or so left. 
I wasn't clear if in forward years there's a plan to refresh that reserve, to increase its volume, the capacity to fund projects. Apologies if I missed that, but I would just welcome any sort of further information on that just to try and give us a bit of reassurance that there's an understanding of despite the good service levels and performance and despite the good governance issues, there's a, there's an underlying problem here if these … in terms of service delivery aren't tackled in the next three to five years. Hope that makes sense.

Helena Gray 18:26
Yeah, and I think that that broader point I think is, as Mark has already said, so you know, transformation isn't, isn't easy. It's a challenge and we know that and I'll be bringing forward a report soon which looks across the piece at all of the best value transformation thematics and we'll be able to take that, that more national picture. But it, but it's not easy. 
I think in terms of the specifics of the transformation reserve, Mark will be able to clarify this, but I believe it's intended to be self-sustaining with investments being made and then coming back in. I think the challenge is, as we've outlined already is just understanding those financial benefits and the intended return I think is, which is probably something that's still not completely clear, but Mark might want to say a bit more on that.

Andrew Burns
Thanks very much.

Mark Stocks 19:14
So, it's another good question, isn't it, Commissioner? So, so there, I don’t think there's an intention to replenish those reserves other than it will kind of, you know, as the transformation come, comes through, then it will be, it will go back again in cycles. 
So, but the, you know, it's not. So Aberdeenshire I think for, particularly for 26/27, have taken a, a different approach to, to kind of save, savings. You can see that they're, they're looking very clearly in terms of the efficiencies that they can make where they, where they need to, to disinvest so in, in areas. 
So, but, you know, your fundamental question is do, do councils need to continue to transform? So and the reality is yes. But when I kind of look at what they're trying to do, so if you take the IJB, there's kind of clear plans in terms of kind of, you know, key strategic reviews of provision. And so you can see that, that being driven forward. But that, that acuteness needs, I think, now to be applied across all services. As I said before, I don't think there's a, that there's a lack of ambition or a lack of will to actually take that forward.

Andrew Burns
Thanks, that's helpful. Thanks very much.

Helena Gray 20:34
I mean, also probably worth just saying, I think there are areas where they have set out the savings that they anticipate to be achieved. And I think one of the case studies within the thematic was around a work stream called big data, digital and technology, which they have estimated will generate 2.27 million savings through reduced headcount as well as non-financial benefits. 
I'm not sure we're quite clear on how quickly those will be achieved though, and I think that's just where that further detail on those, on the detail of those savings is important as they go ahead.

Andrew Burns
Thanks very much. Thanks chair.

Jo Armstrong
Jennifer.

Jennifer Henderson 21:17
Just very specific question I wanted to pick up on about whether you can see the evidence of elected members having line of sight into that transformation programme.
I noted in your report, Mark, you talked about the minutes of the council state that the council's agreed to note the progress related to the transformation activity, but you cited that you didn't see further evidence around the sort of challenge and discussion. And I just wonder if you, there's anything more you can say about how well involved elected members are in understanding what's being transformed, what the impact might be and so on.

Helena Gray 21:52
I’ll bring Mark in to talk a bit more about what he's observed. I think as I said at the beginning, in terms of that governance structure, we can see that elected members do get reports on this every, every six months. I believe there's a goal to move that to quarterly. But I think, as I said, it's the quality of that reporting in terms of the detail around the success measures and the progress being made against those that I think is probably where there can be improvements. But Mark do you want to say particularly about elected member scrutiny of those reports?

Mark Stocks 22:26
Yeah so the, so the council has a strategic change board, which is an oversight board by mainly officers, by chief executives. But those, they’re reports on transformation actually do go to full council and the service committees. So there is a, I think an opportunity for members to see what's happening.
But as Helena said, what we did find was that, you know, we thought they needed better information in terms of, of what was happening. And so sort of clearer information in terms of, of progress. 
I have to say on behalf of members, there is a, there is a level of challenge. So, so when I go to audit committee and I raised this, I think there's a, you know, the audit chair is very clear that the council, it’s an area the council needs to improve on, and I know there are conversations between him and chief officers.

Jennifer Henderson
Thank you, that's helpful.

Jo Armstrong
Ruth.

Ruth Macleod 23:23
I was actually also going to ask about member oversight in terms of the kind of level of information that they were getting, because it was clear that arrangements around monitoring what’s happening and reporting wasn't that strong.
But moving on from that slightly, I wonder if you had a sense that transformation plans were sort of sufficiently ambitious to kind of address some of the financial sustainability issues that the council are facing. 
I didn't quite see the, the connection there in terms of being able to remove the kind of funding for transformation to shore up a financial issue elsewhere, how is transformation actually going to be used differently by the council going forward to address the challenges that they're facing.

Helena Gray 24:11
And I think this is the challenge I suppose with the, where more needs to be done to set out the intended benefits, both financial and non-financial and then to link that to the medium-term financial strategy and the council plan. I think in the absence of that it becomes very difficult to, to offer that definitive view as to whether the ambition there will meet the financial challenges. But Mark might want to say more on that. 
But, but I also think it is also important to remember that in terms of the financial, you know, the forecast budget gap, transformation is obviously one part of that alongside, you know, re-prioritisation of services, income generation as well. 
And all of that comes together in terms of that how they need to close that budget gap. And I think that's what they need to be setting out as part of their medium-term financial strategy. 

Mark Stocks 25:06
Yeah, I, I think, I think there needs to be clearer links. 
So I'm pleased that it's been re-launched, so, through the strategy that went through in January. But I think there needs to be more detail. 
So in terms of well how’s, how's that going to be implemented? So they've, you know, do we have the capacity to implement those programmes and particularly I think how, how's that going to impact on the medium term financial strategy and the gaps there? 
So I think that work is still needs to be done.

Jo Armstrong
Christine.

Christine Lester 25:43
Thanks Jo. Thanks Helena. Thanks Mark for your work. 
So I'd like to just go back to what we were talking about a little bit earlier about the challenges of providing social care services basically. 
And, and I, I know that the, the situation the IJB is in in Aberdeenshire is not unusual in terms of the IJB landscape and the same for the council because of that. But I'd like to look at the, the service changes that have been made that are really cuts under transformation. What, what opportunity have they taken in cutting some of the services to provide other things in a transformative way? 
And I, I recognise that's a difficult question, but it's the question that faces.. and I think we're in danger of, of confusing savings with transformation here. So for instance, the cuts that were made to autism and ADHD diagnosis transport, closure of centres last year. What alternative transformative things happened or were they cuts? 

Helena Gray 26:57
I’ll bring Mark in to talk about some of the specifics if he's, if he's able. 
I think as always with this, the language is emotive and the language is difficult and important. And I think what might be one person's cuts might be another person's redesign, might be another person's transformation. And I think what's important with all of this is thinking about how the services that are being delivered and the choices that are being made support the delivery of the priorities that the council has set out and agreed in its council plan and with its community partners. 
And I think as I've said before, in terms of and what you define as transformation versus what you just define as measures to help balance the budget is a challenge. And we know that transformation is just one part the picture and there are other parts to balance the budget. 
But Mark, I don't know if you want to say about the assessment perhaps on some of those particular services, if you're able.

Mark Stocks 28:00
As much as I can. So, as you’ll be aware, so I get to see social care across the whole country. So, so there's not a council in the country that's not having to make difficult decisions in terms of social care. I think as a society, we need to either make the decision to fund it properly or we're going to have to rely on our social care experts to make the decisions that they need to, to balance the budget for us. 
So, so I actually think Aberdeenshire’s ahead of the game. So they, they spotted the IJB shortfall earlier, I think the most, and have not sort of shrunk away from tackling it and they've taken it head on. 
Now the, they have worked, I think, quite closely with NHS Grampian, so in terms of what they have to deliver. So the things that they've been looking at are, sort of, you know, how to redesign services, so can they improve models of care while transforming? But you know, to be candid it is, it is difficult, but they are, you know, they have done things like the community hospital strategic review, so to kind look at whether they can kind of shape that in a different way. 
So they're not, they're not unaware of the need to protect service users though, but you know, given the financial framework that they're working in, then there's obviously decisions that they have to make, which will, which will impact sort of how far that services, how far those services can be spread.

Chrstine Lester 29:39
Can I get a follow up on that, Jo?
I think, like you, we, we also look across all of social care in Scotland and see the same story. 
My, my real question is around, is it driven by savings or is it driven by transformation? Because I can't, I'm struggling with the language and I'm hoping your report in, you know, when it comes, Helena will help me with that. 
Because there is opportunity here. And you're right, they are ahead of the game. So if they, they’re struggling with it, then everybody else will be too.

Mark Stocks
… Sorry! 
So the best ones do both, don't they? So there's the financial, I suppose, framework drives transformation, so I don't see them sat there going well we’re just going to cut this service. There's thought and process in terms of trying to decide well, how can we change this service rather than just take the service away.

Christine Lester
Thank you. That's helpful. That's really where I was going to. Thank you very much.

Helena Gray 30:47
Well, I think the only thing I would, I'd add on that is, you know, it's not, transformation isn't and it's not a neat linear thing that’s always easy to put into a box. And I think one of the things that you did highlight was that there, there were areas where the council were taking forward work around schools, which I think weren't captured as part of the transformation work, but were clearly also transformative. So I think they’re, as part, I suppose, I hope, of the work that the council has done to review its transformation strategy is thinking about it in the, in the wider sense of the work that is happening and where things like that that might be happening outside of the transformation programme at the moment, they'll be looking at how it captures the breadth of the work going on.

Jo Armstrong
I'm going to move on from transformation unless anybody has a burning question. Angela.

Angela Leitch 31:40
Jo, just a very quick question and it is really in terms of positioning. It strikes me from the report and from reading other reports that the, have been presented to council, that Aberdeenshire has quite challenge in terms of demographics and that their awareness of the changes in their demography is driving a lot of the either change or transformation. I'm just wondering whether as auditors you concur with that?

Helena Gray
I think there's probably a simple answer!

Mark Stocks 32:14
So absolutely, you know the change in demographics, I have some statistics here but I can't quite find them, but the change in sort of over 65s, for example, is significant in Aberdeenshire. So, because it's obviously a beautiful place to live and great place to retire. So, but equally, there's a significant change in sort of school numbers in terms of kind of people kind of working there because, you know. So a lot of the work’s around Aberdeen, so in terms of kind of the oil sort of structures there. 
And so, but those changes, that increase, you know, because we're all getting a little older, aren't we, we’re all living a little longer, they're significant, for Aberdeenshire in terms of the cost and the, and what it's going to have to deal with in terms of social care going forward.

Jo Armstrong
Questions under the section for… Carol.

Carol Evans 33:09
So I've got another question around the impact assessments. 
It looked like from the report that these were done quite late on. So to me it felt like they weren't embedded. So I'd really like to understand why these are not embedded, why they're not considered more along with all the other things. And are, does this mean, is the council then committed to making sure there's no unintended consequences for protected groups? 
And also it talked about the… members not being given enough evidence to make decisions around that kind of impact assessment. So it was really, are they in any breach of their kind of impact duties here? And how are people with protected characteristics being accommodated really through the council plans?

Helena Gray 33:58
Thank you. So I'll be able to make a general remark first off and then come on to the transformation piece. So I think as part of the earlier work on the best value thematic on leadership, this was an area that was also looked at. And I think in that space, auditors concluded that when the council is taking key decisions undertaken by committees, they are required to produce an integrated impact assessment alongside the report to be considered. And from a review of committee minutes and meetings, auditors were able to see evidence of that integrated impact assessment. So I don't think there's a, there's a point of wider concern. 
I think the point that they did make though, was that they, the minutes noted that the impact assessment had been considered as part of the report. There wasn't much by way of recording of the discussion to be able to, to evidence the extent to which it had been discussed. And I think that's an area where they felt that the, the minutes could be improved to, to evidence that. 
I think in terms of transformation particularly, so business cases are required for the transformation programme, are required to produce that integrated impact assessment so that there is that clear appreciation of the impact of changes on those  with protected characteristics. But I think this comes back to the point that not all of the work that the council is doing is captured within that transformation programme. So I mentioned the recent school estate rationalisation which has transformation elements, isn't captured within the transformation programme. 
And, now that's not to say that there's anything untoward in terms of a breach there. But I think it's just that, that it's not being captured as part of the programme so the impact assessments aren’t being captured as part of that, which I think there will be benefits in doing. But I think generally I think the auditors have been comfortable. 

Mark Stocks
Just to confirm what Helena said, I don't need to add any more.
I'm not, you know, the council's aware of its social impact duties and, you know, the reports that I read cover, sort of what I would expect in general. So I'm not aware of…

Malcolm Bell 36:21
Thank you chair. 
I was interested to note that the hybrid home working is now fully embedded, but the report also states that, you know, office rationalisation is making slow progress – apologies for my voice. I just wondered if you could say any more on why that slow progress is there? Is it likely to pick up?

Helena Gray 36:45
I’ll bring Mark in as well. I suppose like many, many employers, hybrid working has obviously left the council with more office space than it currently requires. And I believe there was a recommendation in the workforce thematic to ensure that the links are being made between the workforce strategy, medium-term financial strategy, transformation strategy to bring all of this together in terms of how it, how it uses its estates and others assets. And obviously this is something that we will be coming back to as well as part of the asset management work. 
But Mark, I don't know if you want to say more about the options that the council has explored and the progress that it's been making. 

Mark Stocks 37:31
Yeah, it's a, it's a problem for the public sector, isn't it? Because I think we're all, we were all in our offices, weren't we, kind of pre-Covid, and then suddenly all those investments seem a little naive. So and we have quite a lot of vacant space whether you're in the public sector or private sector to be, to be candid. 
So, so and I think there lies the issue. So, so Aberdeenshire I think has explored the opportunities to, with its estate, utilise it better. So, post implementation of hybrid working. So but there, there's quite a lot, a long time lag to kind of work with public sector partners to get them into the office. I think there is some opportunities now at Woodhill House, which is the main sort of office in Aberdeenshire. So, so I know there's conversations with the police and the NHS. I think on the other estate, it's finding businesses that are willing to actually move, move in so, and where they can actually sell, sell to. So I think there's, you know, there is more to be done. So, but I think the council has made a good start on it, but it still has, I suppose to improve its utilisation of its estate.

Malcolm Bell
Thank you.

Jo Armstrong 38:54
Any other questions on transformation? That takes us into finance and I would ask Derek to lead off.

Derek Yule 39:01
Thanks Chairman. Wondering where to start this because I'm conscious the fact you’ve had the initial focus and questions around about transformation and that's probably a big focus on finance as well, so I don't want to repeat questions that have been before. But I suppose an overarching question is how concerned should we as a Commission be about the medium / long-term financial sustainability of Aberdeenshire Council? 
Now and every council is facing the same financial challenge and we're well sighted on this. From your report, I was concerned that the council was perhaps not as in such as good a place as some others are to address that, and there's four areas that are probably giving me concern. 
Couple of them we’ve covered already, transformation, so as I said, I don't want to repeat that, but I was concerned in your report a bit about in terms of balancing, decisions taken to balance the budget, there was figures put in for transformation and nothing was achieved. 
So I suppose it's part of that, going forward, that 92.4 million figure you mentioned, Helena. What if any assumptions were made about transformation related savings to achieve that? What confidence can we take that, having failed in the past, can the council actually deliver on that? 
I think was, you also mentioned the question of reserves and there's a proposal to restore reserves again. Again, the big question mark for me is given the financial gap, how confident that we can be that the council can build up the reserves again? 
IJBs, again, I took a bit of comfort from the current year update that the actual IJB is forecasting an underspend. But given it has no reserves and there's a call on the council and health board to… again, I'm wondering about the confidence we can have that position can be sustained. 
And my final point, a more specific question, is round about capital. Your report highlights, seem to be a recurring issue of underspends on capital, which again is something that we're seeing elsewhere. But balanced against that I noted that proposal for the council to increase its capital investment, understandably. 
They talk about a ceiling of 8.5%. I'm wondering how that, that figure was arrived at because I think from the benchmarking information we've done that's again it's at the higher end of proportions of debt. So again, given that long-term financial projection of real pressures on its revenue budget, can it afford that level of capital investment and what does that mean for the council if it can't deliver on it? 
So there's a few questions there that I'm trying to get reassurances that the council is going to manage that medium / longer-term financial challenge.

Helena Gray 41:59
I mean it's not in doubt, I don't think that, you know, that there are significant challenges as there are for many. But as I said in my opening remarks, it feels like the relative position is, is particularly challenging. 
I think, you talked about the track record in save, in delivering savings. And I think one of the things that the audit team did highlight is, is that there isn't that process for managing and tracking delivery of savings beyond the eventual under or overspend against the budget for the year. And the audit team made a recommendation that the council should not apply general savings in its budget and instead that all savings should be clearly set out so that performance can be tracked. 
Mark might want to say a bit more about this, but I think the, the budget, the 26/27 budget that has just been approved did include specific service savings of 1.254 million in line with the auditor’s recommendation. There were no general savings. So I think that, that hopefully can demonstrate, give some comfort in that, in that those savings are now identified and progress will be monitored. 
Mark will come in and talk a bit more about the reserves position as well, as you, as you noted, the council has made a commitment to continue to set aside to grow its reserves, but that will obviously be challenging in light of the challenges that it has faced. 
And in terms of capital, again, I'll bring Mark in to talk about the cap that the council has agreed. But as you've noted, they have predicted and underspent, that is something that the sector more generally, we've had a number of discussions around the challenges around capital spend and the, you know, the cost pressures, the resourcing pressures and the need to, they're not alone in having to navigate that. I think a large part of that has been a focus around the Peterhead community campus as well, which they are in the process of developing a new strategy to address. And Mark might went to say, want to say a bit more about that. 
Why don't we address those and then we'll come back to the IJB point as well?

Mark Stocks 44:27
I'm going to try and wrap it all So we'll see. 
So, so we see a lot of financial sustainability issues. So it's kind of the, it's the thing we look on most. So, as auditors now, whether it's Aberdeenshire, elsewhere. And while it's a big figure, then Aberdeenshire is a big council. 
So, so I think you have to kind of put everything in, into perspective in terms of, well, you know, what's the council trying to, to achieve. Now, if I look at Aberdeenshire on a, on a yearly basis, then they need to deliver this, to be candid. So if you look at 24/25, it was there or thereabouts, sort of like, this was in sort of 4 million you’re going to have to draw from reserves. At that point I was, we had conversations about them drawing from reserves. But if you look at 5/6 then despite the IJB pressures, then they're there within £1 million of hitting that budget, which is, you know, a fantastic achievement. So, and that will, they will put some more money back into reserves and then they, you know, they have made sensible decisions for 6/7. 
So, you know, both Commissioners’ comments around sort of cuts and so on. But they, they are making appropriate decisions in terms of where they prioritise their, their spend, and they are disinvesting where they have to. So, so the budget for 6/7 is actually balanced and they've actually managed to put additional funding into the IJB to, to actually, you know, put that back to solvency. And they, and they have worked very hard with NHS Grampian to secure that funding for the IJB as well. 
So they are, they invariably make the right decisions to, to keep themselves financially sustainable. 
So in terms of, well we discussed transformation, so I'm not going to say anything more on transformation. So, they be, you’ll now kind of recognise that’s something for them to I think to focus on going forward.
In terms of savings, a lot of the under-delivery was around transformation. So, but then they found other savings, if I looked at, at 5/6, they'll deliver 21 million of their 28 million savings and then they'll find other savings elsewhere to get them to, to balance. So they, you know, so I, the conversations I have show sensible outcomes and rigour in terms of the responses they're making to, to the various issues.
Reserves. I think reserves are a little low to be candid. So they're about 88 million. Of that there's about, going to, going 29 million, which is either working reserves or risk-based reserves. And then there’s obviously the money available for transformation. So, so can they survive a shock? Yes, they can. Can they survive multiple shocks? To be tested, I think. But you know, you could look across the country and name any, any number of councils who are in the same position. 
Do I believe they will build back? They've been successful so, so far. They put an extra 2 million in for this year. They have a clear, in the budget, they've got an extra 4 million going in for 6/7 so, and then they've got build back from there. So, so I find them quite a determined bunch in terms of when they, they say this is what we're going to do, then they do tend to, to deliver it. 
We've had quite a lot of conversations on capital, to be candid, because I thought the initial capital programme was, wasn't sustainable. So, so where we've got to is that they've put in the cap which is sort of 8.5%. They actually tend to be below the cap. So it's basically it's, what's the, if you took their net revenue budget, what portion of net revenue budget are you actually willing to, to put towards capital schemes? So, and they've capped that at 8.5%, which roughly works out at about 40 to 50 million a year in interest payments. So it's quite a, it's quite, it's quite a lot. So, and the, and the capital borrowing that you're seeing is affordable within that cap. So, so as long as they stay within the cap, then I'm not uncomfortable with where they are. 
But they've been quite clear in their capital strategy to members, that it's almost one in one out, so if you want a different capital project, then you have to take some, something out. And I, again, you know, my impression of them is that they're very sensible in terms of kind of going, well, this is what we can do, we have to cut our cloth to the finances that are available. So do I believe they'll, they'll cover off the long term deficit? That depends on a myriad of things, doesn't it? I think if it lies within their gift, then yes. If government funding changes substantially so then that's not in their gift, but if it’s in their gift then yes, I think they will remain financially sustainable.

Derek Yule 49:55
No, that's reassuring. I mean, I know Helena, I quoted the 92.4. I think the concern is it was the percentage of the council's overall budget, which is something that we look at across all 32 councils. Some of that level at 8.5% is quite high compared to other councils. So there's no right or wrong answer, but just trying to get reassurance. Thank you.

Jo Armstrong
The IJB?

Mark Stocks 50:22
The IJB, yeah, well, I can cover the IJB again. So the, the IJB will continue to add pressure so the council, I think, by 29/30 there’ll be a pressure of something like 30 million so, so but the, I do believe they've grasped the IJB perhaps ahead of what other councils have. But I do wonder whether this will be a conversation for you with other bodies as they come forward. 
So, so they've changed the leadership of the IJB. They've certainly changed the governance. If we look back to 2023 there was call-in decisions by the audit committee that kind of raised the IJB issue and then they've been kind of working on it since with NHS Grampian. 
So, so it remains a risk because social care, NHS, it's a demand-led service, isn't it? So that's, that's the dilemma of our age. So, but they are, they are working hard to make that work.

Jo Armstrong
Mike.

Michael Neilson 51:18
Yeah, we've been over much of this ground already, but, I mean, put crudely, it looks as if the council needs to say basically around 5% a year if you include the IJB over 4-5 year period. And that does feel challenging, reassured by the comments about the, they’re gripping it.
Two, two questions against that, against that background. First question really is, is the transformation process going to be able to deliver to the pace of savings needed or are they going to have to make short term measures? And secondly, they have a very good, you've been very positive about their community engagement activity. With that extent of change, how far, as it were, have they prepared the, their citizens for that, for that degree of change?

Helena Gray 52:27
I think on that, I’ll bring Mark in on the community engagement in particular, but I think going back to that question, I think we have probably gone around that round already in terms of will transformation deliver the savings at the pace that is needed. And I think as we've already said, you know, there are a range of things that need to happen to manage that gap, transformation and that work that they need to do to articulate the benefits that they anticipate realising from the transformation programme, and bringing that into the medium-term financial strategy. 
But there are other things that they are that they need to do as that they are looking at as well in terms of income generation and service prioritisation. But Mark, do you want to say something about community engagement in particular?

Mark Stocks 53:14
Yeah I, so, so just to deal with 5% because I always have to answer questions and I think Helena’s … so, the 5% is not that uncommon in my experience. I know it's a big figure. So, so can councils deliver 5%? Yes if they transform. Do Aberdeenshire need to make sure that they're transforming? Yes, they do. So because you know that that's the only way. You literally have to look at it service by service, go back to base budget and then go well what are we going to change. Now they have started that process, first time they did that was 6/7 but they will need to continue that as they move forward. 
So I think they have a good record on community engagement. If you look back on the leadership report that we did so the, the council plan was well discussed with the community, the priorities were based on where the community wanted them to, to place the money. But I think they will have to do that again though, because, you know, some of these changes will impact on some of the services that they can provide. But they are, you know, they very much work to place in Aberdeenshire, and kind of look at the impact of what they do on each area because it's such a diverse area and such a wide geographical area. So do I, but I do have confidence that they will take that forward through the committee structure that they have to make sure that they are, they are talking to the community, but it will be challenging, no doubt.

Jo Armstrong 54:52
Can I pick up one item in your report around the Ness energy facility and the extent to which as you say the council need to ensure an appropriate agreement is reached in the EFW facility if it's to avoid a negative impact on its medium-term financial strategy. So that negative impact, is it a contingent liability? Is it quantified? Is it, how likely is it to be…?

Mark Stocks  55:16
Oh is this the energy from waste? So, so well, they're already on that journey in terms of where they, they've got to. I don't, if you don't mind, I’m happy to go into more detail in the private session. So but, but some of this…

Jo Armstrong 
To understand the issues we need to hear it in public. What you can share publicly.

Mark Stocks 
Yeah. OK. So obviously they, the contract was let, so the supplier has withdrawn from the contract. So there's obviously some legal implications to deal with that. In terms of the, of the cost to the council, it's something like £2 million per annum is the additional the cost they're paying to the interim supplier. That service then needs to be re-let, so and then hopefully that cost will reduce.

Jo Armstrong
…the contingent liability on their balance sheet is not clear at the moment and it doesn't necessarily feed through into their financial projections, medium-term financial…

Mark Stocks
I don't think it would, beyond the, beyond the additional service cost, I don't think there will be a particularly negative impact on the balance sheet.

Jo Armstrong
Just it's a quite stark statement.

Mark Stocks 56:24
Yeah, yeah, no, it's fine. So we're always cautious as auditors aren’t we, have things like contingent liabilities just in case, but my, you know, our understanding grows and I don't, I don't think it’s going to have significant impact. 

Jo Armstrong
OK, that’s helpful, thank you. I think that takes us on to leadership and governance. Malcolm.

Malcolm Bell
Chair, my question was going to be around elected member scrutiny and to be honest it has been adequately covered. So thanks.

Jo Armstrong
Anybody else want to pick up? Angela.

Angela Leitch 56:52
Can I just ask in terms of the political leadership? There have been several changes in the leadership over the last few years and I wonder to what extent that's limiting longer-term planning and the follow-through of priorities.

Helena Gray
I'll let you come in and share your observations.

Mark Stocks 57:14
So not, not at all in my experience, because I think it's … 
… coalition governance, then it can be difficult, it can be difficult for difficult decisions to, to be made. And I suppose the test for, for me was whether the, the difficult decisions would be made for the 6/7 budget because that, that's when these things tend not to work. 
But that didn't, didn't happen. The 6/7 budget is a sensible budget in terms of, you know, agreeing to disinvest. And so I've not seen any tension. Certainly, certainly officers aren't reporting to me any kind of difficulties in how that coalition is working. 

Angela Leitch
Thank you.

Jo Armstrong
Andy.

Andrew Cowie 58:02
Can I pick up the area of risk? So just a different theme for us. 
And I think Aberdeenshire has had more than its fair share of incidents to have to deal with recently, the Deeside flooding to the big snowfalls earlier in the winter. I think it certainly seems to, from observing from outside, managed that risk particularly well and has developed expertise, perhaps didn't want to develop that expertise but they appear to have done so, where significant numbers of their citizens have been affected. 
So if we look at the internal audit regime, and internal auditors are obviously interlinked to you as an external auditor, in internal. I'm particularly interested around the areas of limited assurance, I think there's seven that are highlighted in the report there. Some of them I think would obviously affect a lot of people, self-directed care, children with disabilities. 
Can you just give us some sense of around that limited assurance, should we be concerned around that? Is that something that's going to bite big time or are you happy that they've got the necessary in place?

Helena Gray
Yeah I mean, I'll, I'll bring in Mark. And as the report concluded, but you know from the, from the auditor’s view that there were no significant gaps in the assurances that were obtained by the audit committee and that they had an effective framework for considering that. But I don't know if you want to go through some of the specifics that you considered.

Mark Stocks 59:31
So, so internal audit issued about 31 reports. So, of which you might mention sort of seven, seven kind of highlighted sort of areas of risk. 
So this is why I think Aberdeenshire’s strong. So, so you know, when it sets the plan, it literally points internal audit at the areas that it thinks they're going to find challenges in. So they can take the learning and actually kind of like move on. And to be candid, that's a good council, in my experience. It’s the councils where they kind of do like repeat reviews that never look at anything difficult and then have kind of everything just seems nice, but perhaps isn't so. So I think internal audit are suitably challenged.
If you look at the children's disability one, I won't go through them all, but it kind of highlights sort of issues around lack of documentation and central records, delay in planned completion. So sometimes approval limits being exceeded. 
So that could be anywhere council to be, to be honest. So a lot of sort of councils struggle with that kind of children's social care aspect. But the, it's the response that matters to me. So the, so the audit committee wasn't happy with that and actually referred that into the scrutiny process and the education department’s had to write a formal report on how it’s sort of, so how it's going to improve. 
So, so I think internal, internal audit are rightly challenging. So there's nothing in there that they flagged to me in terms of fraud or anything that would undermine the governance. Certainly their, their overall internal audit report was, was a clean one. So what they're doing is rightly challenging the council to get better.

Jo Armstrong
Anything else under leadership and governance?
Takes us to partnership working. Angela.

Angela Leitch 1:01:37
Thank you. 
You've already covered the effective working that there is with Grampian health board. So I wondered, the report would suggest that there are other partnerships in play, but maybe not as extensive as, as we might have thought. 
Could you just elaborate a bit on where the partnerships are strong and how that's supporting the financial sustainability of the council?

Helena Gray
Yeah, I’ll bring Mark in because you've got some of the detail of the different partnerships that are underway.

Mark Stocks 1:02:10
Yeah. So the, yeah, that's one thing they can do more here, to be candid. So the partnerships that we see, so they have a joint internal audit function with sort of Aberdeen City and some of the IJBs. There's a joint insurance service with Aberdeen City and then there's various kind of support on strategies and peer reviews and collaborations. But they're all, they’re all I think at the margins. So, so I think there's perhaps more that can be done in terms of partnerships. So whether that's in terms of, I don't know, to take forward children's social care or on shared IT systems or even on shared finance functions, then I think there's, there's more to be done there. 
But I do think there's the appetite, so, to do that. But they, they do have to prioritise. So they have to decide what they're going to, to do first. And I would much prefer they focused on transformation rather than this.

Jo Armstrong
Thank you. Malcolm.

Malcolm Bell 1:03:22
Just to kind of build on that, because I noted that the Controller’s report, paragraph 47, there’s listed the areas where they do work in, in partnerships. So there's things like procurement, which I think is with Highland Council, planning, internal audit, and then in the BV thematic, you know, there is the comment that there is little evidence of partnership working. And I just, I just wondered if that was perhaps being a little harsh? You know, given that they seem to be...

Mark Stocks 1:04:01
No, so, well I can be a little harsh. So, but that's OK, because I’m an auditor, so that's fine. So I see these things in terms of the financial challenge. So, so what's fundamentally going to change whether Aberdeenshire is financially sustainable and these, these won't change that answer. So these are things that are at the margins in terms of how councils should operate. And so I don't, you know, it's a good list, isn't it? So, but will this fundamentally change how services are delivered to the public? Will it fundamentally change the financial position of Aberdeenshire? No it won’t.

Helena Gray 1:04:44
I think it comes down to that point around that transformation piece, isn’t it, really, and the scale and the size and the ambition. If the question is, do Aberdeenshire have partnerships, then I think we can point to yes, they do. 
But is there, as with across so many and across the sector more generally and as we've discussed in other fora and in relation to others, is there a need to look more widely at the opportunities around, given the scale of the challenges then I think, yes. And I mean, and I think that applies to so many others as well.

Jo Armstrong
Christine.

Chrstine Lester  1:05:25
Just a quick question on partnership working. One of the partnerships that's not mentioned, I didn't even expect it to be, but it's particularly important to Aberdeenshire, given the context, the demographics is the ADP, the alcohol and drugs partnership. How strong is that partnership in your opinion?

Mark Stocks 1:05:44
You finally asked a question I can't answer. So, so I would have to go away and have a look at that, but I'm not going to, I'm not going to give you…

Christine Lester
I'd be interested in, in your response if you know. Thank you.

Mark Stocks
I’ll go and have a look at that.

Jo Armstrong 1:05:59
Any other questions for Mark or Helena? 
I think you’ve given us plenty of food for thought. Thank you both. And we will return to this in the private session.

Part 2 

Jo Armstrong 0:01
Good morning all, still. this is our second 102 report at today's public session of the Commission. 
It is a statutory report by the Controller of Audit on Clackmannanshire and Stirling Integrated Joint Board.
The report was produced following the 24/25 audit of the IJB. The Commission is invited to consider and endorse the Controller’s report in this session, noting that her conclusions are not necessarily Commission's conclusions. We will then consider in private later today how we wish to proceed. 
For clarity, legislation allows the Commission to respond to section 102 reports on issues of concerns in IJBs in the same way as it can for councils.
The Controller and the auditor are here to provide any clarification or answers to questions that members may have and we have up to 45 minutes for this session. 
So I'll hand over to Helena. Welcome Helena, Stuart and Kathrine. 

Helena Gray 1:01
Thank you, and good morning again everyone. 
I welcome the opportunity to discuss my statutory report on Stirling and Clackmannanshire Integrated Joint Board and the challenges they faced in securing a section 95 officer. I'm delighted to be joined by Kathrine Sibbald from our performance audit team in Audit Scotland and by Stuart Kenny from Deloitte and I thank them for all their hard work on the audit and the report that we have in front of us today. 
As the Commission will be aware, the section 95 officer role is a statutory role with responsibility for ensuring the proper financial management of the Integrated Joint Board. They have important responsibilities relating to financial governance and strategic financial planning. 
As the Commission will also be aware, IJBs are in a critical financial position, with many facing significant financial challenges and minimal levels of reserves. The role of a section 95 officer in this context has never been so important.
Unfortunately, however, following a resignation and failed recruitment attempt, Stirling and Clackmannanshire IJB was without a section 95 officer for a period of nine weeks at the end of last year. 
While Chief Finance Officers from the three partner bodies provided support to the interim chief officer during this time, there was no individual who was specifically responsible for fulfilling the section 95 officer responsibilities. 
This came against the backdrop of significant turnover in the Chief Officer role with four individuals having held the Chief Officer role in the last five years, three of whom did so on an interim basis. 
It's important to note that the departure of the IJB CFO did not adversely affect financial management or the annual account preparation, though the auditor did report some challenges with year-end audit arrangements, which is testament to the close working undertaken by the three partner bodies and the interim chief officer. But the failure to have an identified section 95 officer is a failure to ensure good governance and accountability, and one which should be treated as such. 
I am happy to report that an individual has now been appointed permanently to the section 95 officer role, and I understand recruitment for a permanent Chief Officer is also planned. 
I would highlight that the struggle to recruit permanently to both Chief Officer and Chief Finance Officer roles in IJBs is a challenge for the sector more generally, not just Stirling and Clackmannanshire. Over half of IJBs experienced a change at either CFO or Chief Officer level in 24/25, and appointments were frequently made on an interim basis while a permanent replacement was sought. Such instability in leadership teams and the impact that can have on strategic planning is concerning given the significant challenges faced.
My report, therefore, makes a number of recommendations that are applicable, I think, to many across the sector, specifically the importance of ensuring that contingency arrangements are in place to ensure that statutory responsibilities are clearly delegated to appropriate individuals, should an individual depart before a replacement is found.
I’ll pause there, but we'll do our best to answer questions. 

Jo Armstrong 4:02
Thanks Helena. And to help facilitate the next session, we've structured our discussion around three main subject areas, covering governance and risk management, leadership, collaboration and workforce, and financial management. And to start the questioning off I’ll ask Andrew to lead off.

Andrew Burns 4:19
Thanks, Jo, thanks Helena and colleagues for the report. 
I wonder if I can just go straight to the crux of this. I mean really as you said, Helena, IJBs right across Scotland are facing critical financial position, and the situation that Clackmannanshire is in isn't particularly different from any other IJBs. And thankfully, as you also said and is clear in the report, nothing went financially belly-up during the period of there being no identified section 95 officer, but it's a legal requirement. And I'm just looking at the section of the report that deals with the November 2025 IJB meeting where the vacancy was sort of reported. And it appears that, you know, it seems a statement of fact that officers indicated that all statutory requirements were met and there were no legal issues identified. 
I assume, as an Accounts Commissioner, that that led elected members and members of the IJB to feel that they weren't doing anything unlawful, but in fact it appears it is the case that they were. And I'm just at a loss to understand how that came about. Was it just a misunderstanding? Was it just an error of judgement? A genuine mistake? I mean, because it does seem to me from what we've got before us, that officers of the IJB reported that everything legally was fine, when everything legally wasn't fine. And the, in essence, the Act was not being adhered to, and whilst as, as you said, as I’ve sort of confirmed, thankfully nothing went wrong, and the individuals who stood in to fill the vacancy collectively, there was more than one of them, obviously did a pretty good job making sure that everything was done that required to be done, there was none of them were identified as the individual section 95 officer. And I don't know if you'll be able to say any more about how that happened. 
Maybe there's no answer to it. And I think you hinted at this, Helena, in your opening comments, and it's a pretty important point to get out there to other local authorities like IJBs, so this isn’t repeated in the future because whilst nothing's gone wrong in this occasion, given the situation that IJBs are in financially, it could do in the future.

Helena Gray 6:30
We'll try and shed as much light on that as, as we can, but it's, it's obviously a complicated picture, I think.
As you've said, the Chair raised the lack of a designated section 95 officer at the November meeting and the minutes of the meeting highlighted that they'd noted that assigning specific people to these positions is essential for meeting statutory requirements. But as you've also noted, there was legal advice provided, sorry there was advice provided at the meeting that there were no legal issues identified. So it feels like a slight mismatch between that. 
I’ll bring in the team because at the time the IJB did not have a formal process for legal advice at that time, which I think has since been resolved by the interim Chief Officer. But Stuart, I don't know if you want to say any more about your perspectives of, of how the decision was made.

Kenny Stuart 7:27
I think ultimately based on the communication we had at the time with the Chief Officer at the IJB, she was comfortable that all statutory requirements were being met as a result of the fact that they had three senior experienced CFOs in place who were sharing the responsibilities between them. But, as we've highlighted in our report, that doesn't get away from the fact that there wasn't a formal arrangement in place and that it wasn't formally set out who was the section 95 officer.

Andrew Burns
Thanks. That's, that's pretty clear. Thanks.

Nichola Brown 8:05
Can I follow up? 
Just, just related to that. I mean, what it suggests to me, well, what I'm still struggling a little bit with, and I thank you for that response. I'm still struggling a little bit to understand when the IJB Chair noted that assigning a specific person is essential for statutory requirements. That then that didn’t, that, you know, the minutes then record something that appears to be completely contradictory. 
So in my mind, that suggests something about an imbalance or the relationships, which I'm sure you can't comment on but it, but it nonetheless still strikes me as odd. That those two things which seem a complete juxtaposition are recorded in the minutes.

Helena Gray
I don't think I've got anything more to add to that, really. I think that is, that is the challenge, but appears to have been how, how it…

Andrew Cowie 9:10
A slightly adjunct point, but I noticed, quote, we have not put any reliance on internal audit in this report, which is a phrase that jumped out at me, because I haven't seen that before in other reports. 
Is it that you don't see the information that internal audit in this one as providing valid and reliable information, or that your professional scepticism meant you wanted to do it yourself.

Helena Gray
I'll let you come in on your judgement.

Stuart Kenny 9:42
Neither, really. So it's our audit methodology that we review all internal audit reports produced during the year. We then take those internal audit reports and use those as part of our risk assessment procedures. So then we’re kind of making sure that we're picking up the right areas. 
But under auditing standards, in order to place direct reliance on the work of internal audit, it requires quite a bit of additional work, so we would essentially have to re-perform all of their work and as a result, purely from an efficiency perspective, it just isn't time-effective. 
So what I would say is we include that statement in all of our reports at Deloitte just to make it really clear to, to the user that we haven't placed reliance on it. But it's no reflection on the quality of the internal audit or the work that they do, it's just simply our methodology.

Andrew Cowie
It’s interesting because we just had a report which did put some reliance on internal audit. And they didn’t re-do it. But they examined, you know, the follow-up recommendations etc. So just interesting that different approach, so it's really helpful to fill in a gap in my knowledge if nothing else. Thank you.

Jo Armstrong
Malcolm.

Malcolm Bell 11:00
Thanks, chair. I just wanted to go back to, it’s connected to Andrew's question. 
And I mean, I understand that members were told there was no legal difficulties, with the path that was suggested, but I just wonder was that, was there any challenge because the requirement to have a section 95 officer is not unique to IJBs. So the members sitting on that board ought to have had some knowledge of the, of the requirement I would have thought. So just one, specifically, was it challenged by members, and secondly, what's your, what’s your take on the level of challenge generally that members are providing on the board?

Helena Gray 11:51
Yeah, I’ll bring Stu in, Stuart in to talk about that particularly. I suppose the other observation I'd make in terms of the discussion that happened in November or the concern that the Chair raised, at that point recruitment was underway, and an appointment, an interim appointment was then made in in December. So I think there's obviously a recognition as well that the recruitment can take time, but it was underway. I think what I'm not clear on is whether there was a discussion about that interim period from November to the appointment being made, about whether there was a discussion to formally delegate the responsibilities, as we've highlighted that didn't happen, while recruitment was underway, or whether there was that discussion around what would happen if recruitment wasn't successful as well. 
But Stuart, I don't know if you want to say a bit more about the challenges, the dynamics as well and that, that sense of challenge and scrutiny.

Stuart Kenny 12:52
So in terms of scrutiny at the board, so I've been involved with the audit since September 25. So I can't really comment on the challenge prior to that, but since I've been involved, I think the challenge has been appropriate and proportionate. 
I think in relation to this particular scenario, and this particular situation, I think the situation was very much one, they understood the position across IJBs in general across the country, where there is a real struggle in terms of recruitment. And so there was an acknowledgement that actually alternative arrangements may need to be taken into, may need to take place. However, that doesn't get away from the fact that there was no formal arrangement put in place.

Jo Armstrong
Christine.

Christine Lester 13:45
Yeah it was just, around that. I think, I just wanted to understand, so they understood, the IJB really did understand the position but they were unable to influence, shall we say, what happened in that period. What about the partner organisations? Because they were providing the support, but they should, they would definitely still have been aware of the legal obligation.
Can you comment on that?

Helena Gray 14:14
Stuart, I don’t know if you want to talk a bit about the conversations that you'd had? I think it's also important to note at this point, as the timeline sets out, that there was also an interim Chief Officer, who moved on in December and a new interim Chief Officer arrived in December, so there's, so there’s a lot of change happening within the officer space as well. But in terms of the partner organisations and the support that they provided that interim Chief Officer.

Stuart Kenny 14:45
So I think, with specific reference to the section 95 role, there was an acknowledgement by the interim Chief Officer at the time that there was a need for senior finance expertise within the IJB, given the fact that they didn't have a formal individual in place, which is why the Chief Officer at the time went out and sought that additional support from the three partner bodies. The three partner bodies, the CFOs were heavily involved, splitting out all of the key responsibilities of the section 95, including obviously the audit query and audit queries in order to allow us to finalise the audit. But then also we know that they present, continued to present financial reports through to the board during that time. So there doesn't appear to have been a real decrease in terms of the activities of the section 95.
However. I come back to it, in terms of our actual, well, the conversations that we had at the time, there was an acknowledgement that there needed to be this additional support, but there wasn't a need at the time for that to be formally agreed upon, because of the wider situation within the sector as a whole around recruitment, and the fact that they were going through a recruitment process at the time for a section 95.

Christine Lester
Gosh, right. Thank you.

Jo Armstrong
Jennifer.

Jennifer Henderson 16:20
I suppose it's a broader point around this question of people understanding what the legal requirements are and that kind of maintenance of institutional knowledge, because with a lot of churn in potentially officer level roles, are we in a situation where the people who are supposed to be challenging aren’t, haven't got the knowledge about what is and is not a legal requirement? And I just wonder whether you've got any thoughts, probably Helena, but about what's covered when people are inducted into roles like IJB Chairs about this is what you are fundamentally responsible for making sure legally happens, and even if all the other personalities move around, that individual can be the guardian of making sure that legal requirements are met. Because, my sense with this is this could happen in other places and it could happen with other types of statutory role where people just don't understand that this is something that they have to insist is in place rather than there's a different way of delivering it.

Helena Gray 17:20
Yeah, and I think there’s, I mean, I can't comment on the specifics of the induction process, but I think, you know, within this IJB, the Chair rotates every, there’s a new Chair appointment every two years and I think it is important as part of that that as you say there is a clear understanding of the, of the roles and responsibilities. And I do hope, I suppose, that in bringing this report, in highlighting, it's an opportunity to highlight the importance of these statutory roles and the importance of having those conversations. 
I would highlight though that the IJB scheme of delegation does, is explicit about the importance of the, of the CFO role and recognises the risk that the CFO may be absent or otherwise enable to carry out their esponsibilities, and that a suitably experienced and qualified person can be formally appointed to carry out the role in the CFO’s absence, so it's recognised there and it is captured within the scheme of delegation.

Jennifer Henderson
Thank you.

Jo Armstrong 18:28
OK, if there's nothing else on governance and risk management, move on to leadership, collaboration and workforce. Angela.

Angela Leitch 18:35
So it's slightly related to governance, Jo, if you don't mind. I just wonder what lessons learned the IJB have taken from this particular episode in terms of their wider legal responsibilities. Not just in terms of posts, but more broadly. And is it an indication of governance that does need to be sharpened up?

Helena Gray 19:01
So I think, as I’ve already mentioned, there's been quite a lot of change within this IJB with new Chair taking place, interim Chief Officer and the interim and now permanent Chief Finance Officer being appointed. So I think there's lots of reflection I think that for both the IJB and the sector more widely around that. 
I think in relation to that question though around, I suppose the question of is this indicative of a wider or systematic failure of governance and leadership within the IJB.
Putting aside the impact of a significant turnover, I think, of chief officers as I, as I mentioned, that has been a significant turnover but they are not alone in that. 
I think we can, and Stuart will want to come in on this in more detail, just talk about the governance arrangements more generally within the IJB. So they established a finance, audit and performance committee in February of last year, which brought together two separate committees to focus on audit, risk and finance. 
Now they didn't produce an annual assurance statement at the time as it was part way through the year, but they have since produced an annual assurance statement in that new format, which was presented to the February 2026 meeting. So again, there's a point of governance that is happening.
However on the other side they are due to update their integration schedule as are, you know, there is that rolling review of those, now that is still pending, and I believe two out of the three partners have agreed to that integration, integration schedule.
But Stuart, I don't know if you want to say any more around the leadership and governance more generally within the IJB.

Stuart Kenny 20:55
I think the first thing I would just draw out is obviously our report is focused on the financial year 24/25. And this obviously happened post year-end. As a result, we haven't specifically gone into a lot of detail in relation to the kind of governance arrangements during that nine-week period. We will be picking that up as part of our report that we issue in the autumn. So we will be focusing on this in quite a bit of detail. 
However, from a wider perspective in terms of 24/25, we didn't identify any other significant issues that we wanted to draw out in relation to the general governance arrangements of the IJB. There are obviously challenges at the IJB around financial sustainability, which is again a sector-wide issue, but from what we could see from our work, there were no significant issues that we felt we needed to draw out in our report.

Angela Leitch 21:55
So as a follow-up in terms of lessons learned, then. Is the plan that that will be undertaken by yourselves or the IJB, and in particular, given the issues in terms of recruitment, have they considered what implications there might be for other senior levels within that, that body? Are they reviewing, thinking about, forward planning for that?

Helena Gray 22:21
So I think there, as I mentioned earlier, there are plans underway for the permanent recruitment of the Chief Officer role and the Chief Finance Officer is now, has now been permanently appointed. So I think, you know, in terms of that stability of the, of the leadership, I think that is important. 
Certainly in terms of our work, as Stuart's mentioned, this will be a continued area of focus for the audit going forward. I don't know whether the IJB itself has committed to a review of any lessons learned.

Stuart Kenny 22:56
It's not something at the moment that we are aware of, but that doesn't mean that they haven’t done that. We are aware, as you've, as you've mentioned, that they are looking and have appointed a new Chief Finance Officer and I'm aware through discussions with that Chief Finance Officer that there are ongoing reviews around certain areas. But I'm not, I couldn't necessarily commit to a lessons learned exercise taking place in response to the section 95 role.

Jo Armstrong
Derek.

Derek Yule 23:30
Thanks chair. 
I wonder if I could approach this from a different angle. I'm trying to tease out the sort of wider learning points for the sector as a whole, rather than specifically, because on one hand I think we'd all accept there's a technical breach of the legislation. It's a bit, well, so what? 
You could look at it in a perspective, well, the IJB put in place arrangements by splitting the role and I’d be quite interested to tease out, I think when you said that, that the three, well the two section 95 plus the director of finance at the health board, sort of split the, the role. So at a, a kind of operational level, dare I say the kind of book-keeping, financial reporting, it looks as if they addressed that bit. 
The bit that I'm not seeing is where I see the importance of the statutory role as in that strategic financial governance role, and I wonder, I mean, this is probably not a unique because I have been aware of other, where somebody from a council or health board has stepped in. 
I do wonder is there a potential conflict of interest in this given some of the financial challenges that councils and health boards are facing, you're then taking the Chief Finance Officer from one of these to represent an IJB. And if you like, there must be some conflicts within that. So that to me is where I think the importance of this report falls rather than the fact that they still managed to produce their accounts on time and the financial advice was still there. It's that wider strategic role that I’d be interested to get your views on.

Helena Gray 25:12
Yeah. And I think as Stuart said, there'll be more, I think that as we, as we go through the 25/26 audit, where this might, might come out. 
But I think as you mentioned, there, work was done to balance the key duties, but it was that, it’s that lack of formal designated responsibility in that section 95 officer space that is, is the concern.
I think, in relation, and I’ll bring Stuart in, but in relation to that, to that point of conflict, I think it's important to remember that the, there were the three partners working together in support of a chief in, an interim Chief Officer role. So I would have thought in that context, those contexts, those any perceived or real conflicts would have been managed by that Chief Officer in that role as well. 
But Stuart, I don’t know if you’ve got more to say about how that may have worked in practice as well.

Stuart Kenny 26:07
So the first thing I would say is we didn't identify any conflicts of interest during our work. What I would say is, in relation to this particular IJB, historically they've always had a very small finance team. So up until October it was a CFO and a management accountant. Unfortunately both left in quick succession. But there's always therefore been a heavy reliance on the individual finance teams at the three partner bodies, so they've always been very involved in the process anyway. 
So actually, if I'm thinking about it in terms of that kind of wider support piece, the fact that the three CFOs then stepped into, to this position didn't really change a huge amount in terms of the day-to-day operation. I take your point in terms of the strategic direction, which is the pay, point where they would have been adding more value. But on a day-to-day basis, there was very little change in terms of the kind of operations of the IJB financially.

Jo Armstrong
Ruth.

Ruth Macleod 27:20
Thank you. I'm just going back to the issue of chief officer turnover. Obviously for this IJB there’s been quite significant turnover across quite a long period of time over the last 10 years and we know that they’re not unique in that, but it did seem to be quite a high number. 
And then you have the issue of having interims in and recruitment, potentially losing kind of institutional knowledge. I'm just wondering if any work has been done by the IJB around potentially future retention, but also exit interviews in terms of why people have left. So that there might be kind of learning terms, in terms of holding on to chief officer level staff for longer periods of time, and/or having mitigation in place if that's going to be a continuing issue for them. 
That would be helpful to know.

Helena Gray 28:05
So again, I'm not sure of any wider review that the IJB has done, I think. 
And Stuart and Kathrine might want to come in on a bit more of the detail, but the previous permanent chief officer left sort of three years ago, I believe, for a post in the NHS, and since then there have been interim appointments, all of which have moved on and had to be replaced. 
I think as I outlined before that there is a wider sectoral challenge here. I don't think there's been any structured systematic review of, of that. But as with any sort of consideration of turnover and recruitment challenges, I suspect it's around a combination of issues relating to supply, salaries and also, then also the nature of, of the role. 
You know the CFO role is a really important one, but it is a challenging one and I'm and I'm sure that is probably part of the, of the picture. 
But I think it is a good question, but I'm, I don't think there has been that systematic review, at a sectoral level either, around the challenges around recruitment and retention in these roles.

Ruth Macleod 29:37
Because you can just see why problems kind of build up when you’ve got that kind of turnover and as you say it's happening in other parts of the country as well. So it is an area of concern because then you start to have issues like this popping up.

Helena Gray 29:51
I think absolutely it is sectoral wide issue of concern, I think it was highlighted in the Commission's own recent financial bulletin for, for the sector. And I think, particularly when you see the challenges facing the sector, and the importance of leadership in navigating those challenges, such turnover is an area of concern.

Jo Armstrong
Andy.

Andrew Cowie 30:17
Maybe a bit of a random question, but if I picked this up correctly, this is the only IJB in Scotland that have three parties around that. And I know Highland is slightly unique as well. So given your kind of awareness of IJBs and structural and governance and all the things we're talking about, I think I'm picking up from your report that it's probably a bit aggravating for the auditor to have to deal with three sets of accounts, we can understand that. But is there any advantage that you can see in governance terms to having three bodies as part of the model or with the models?

Helena Gray 30:54
I'm not sure I know an advantage. I think with anything where there are partners involved there are challenges and I think we obviously know that the IJB had challenges in agreeing it's, its budget last year. Again, they're not alone in that, when there are only two partners involved. I'm not sure I feel, I don't know whether Kathrine from a sector, more sectoral-wide position would feel able to comment on that?

Kathrine Sibbald 31:22
I don't think there’s anything specific in either direction. I wouldn’t want to suggest it was a positive or a negative in terms of the structure. 
I think a slightly sideways point is around actually the discussions and the conversations that were had on that weekly basis by the three different parties in support of the lack of an I, a Chief Finance Officer. Certainly what came through in the discussions with those individuals was a more positive relationship across the three of them that came out of the exercise.

Jo Armstrong 31:55
That takes us then to our final section which is financial management, really a significant issue in terms of the issues facing IJBs. Can I ask Mike to lead off?

Michael Neilson 32:05
I suppose my, the answer to my question could be short because it really relates to how far the issues of financial sustainability, the strategic issues, were taken forward effectively during that period of absence, which I suspect that now, we’ll see that next year.
I would like to pick up on this point about the collaboration between the different finance officers, because I think on one of the broad challenges of the IJB structure is really that in order to achieve financial sustainability, you do need very close partnership across the, all of the… So is there anything positive really coming out in that area in terms of that underlining of the, of the kind of importance of them working together to accommodate anything?

Helena Gray 32:55
I mean, I think just on your, on your first point, I think it probably is important to remember that the period of absence was nine weeks. So just in terms of that sort of wider question around the progress against strategic financial responsibility, you know, it was a period of just the nine weeks. 
I think in terms of that, the benefits of the three partner bodies working together, I think Kathrine's probably covered as much as we can say, but Kathrine, I don't know whether there's more, or Stuart, that you'd add in terms of what the partner bodies themselves have said in terms of that understanding.

Kathrine Sibbald 33:30
Just in terms of better understanding of the issues within the different bodies and the wider challenges of the structure of IJBs and financial management issues around IJBs. And that, that came across, all parties had a better understanding of the role each had, but also of the IJB structure and arrangements.

Helena Gray 33:54
I suppose what it would be interesting is, during the course of the audit work going ahead, whether the audit teams see that benefit playing out and that lasting beyond, and I think that you know, it's clearly too early to say whether that will happen.

Jo Armstrong 
Any other questions around financial management? Carol. 

Carol Evans 34:13
It's just a wider question. It says, you know, they've, they’ve not got any reserves and this is, they're not necessarily alone in getting to that position. My understanding was in public sector, you should never get to the stage you don't have reserves. So how are we getting in this situation and more widely to a stage where we have bodies without reserves and what lessons or governance can be put in place that they don't get to that criticality?

Helena Gray 34:43
Yeah, so I might bring in Kathrine to talk a bit more about, actually, because at that sectoral level, you know, Clackmannanshire and Stirling IJB are not alone in this. I think it is also important just to clarify that it’s, the end of 24/25, they did have earmarked reserves, so they had around 10 million of earmarked reserves, but no unearmarked reserves, which is in breach of their own reserves policy, but I think it is important to clarify.
But you know it, they're not alone in that position as the, as the Commission's own finance bulletin set out. But Kathrine, I don’t know if you want to say a little bit more.

Kathrine Sibbald 35:29
Not sure there's an awful lot more to add to that other than the headlines that, the messages, the key messages in the IJB Finance Bulletin and the findings of that is that it's a critical issue across the whole sector and is therefore an issue for NHS boards and councils alike. And it's a challenge that, as we've seen over the last two or three years that we've been reporting on, it's a deepening issue across the sector.

Jo Armstrong 36:00
Any other questions? And I think we've probably covered the broad spectrum of things because it's, it's not just about this IJB, it's also about the sector as a whole, so thank you for your contributions today and we will ponder and consider in private the, our response to this, this report. Thank you.
OK this takes us to item 7, local, local government policy update, and hand over to Joe.

Joe Chapman 36:56
Thanks very much, chair. A couple of updates from the last meeting and a couple of other recent updates to add to the report. 
So it turns out I was overly pessimistic about the consequential funding for Scotland from the UK Government's covering English councils’ debts from special educational needs and disabilities. Paragraph nine of the report sets out the funding that S, Scottish Government will get in 26/27 and then in 28/29, there's two different prompts of that funding coming. And the government is, of course, free to use that extra funding as they wish, and there's no clear information yet on where that's going to be directed to. 
And on the Scottish Government-commissioned review by Janie McManus of additional support needs provision, the report has been published just this morning. So we'll share the link to that with members in the usual updates. 
Other recent updates, the prospect of strikes by teachers in schools in some areas of Scotland has, since the report, both become more imminent and then receded again. This is in relation to a dispute around teacher workloads. Yesterday, the EIS union said that an agreement, a draft agreement had been reached to end the dispute and that's due to be discussed and potentially ratified by COSLA tomorrow, COSLA leaders. 
One other thing to quickly note, which is that the LGBF national overview report on councils’ performance data in 24/25 was published yesterday. So we will obviously look at that and share that again in the coming days with members. Happy to take any questions. 

Jo Armstrong
Questions for Joe. Malcolm.

Malcolm Bell 38:39
Yeah, thanks chair. 
Not really a question so much as a comment on paragraph 27, where West Lothian Council will stop public broadcasting of its meetings. And I totally appreciate that councils are under pressure and they’re making assessments on areas they can make cuts. And you know, I'm not disputing they have a right to do that, but I do find it slightly concerning given over the years, councils have progressively added this. You know as a, there’s an issue around transparency and openness and access here. And I was also surprised at the, the planned saving of 51,000 per annum, because again, my understanding is that most of the costs in these systems are up-front capital costs and once, once they're installed, other than licence fees and whatever else, it’s not that much. 
So again, I'm not disputing any of that, but I just want to note. I just find that a bit, a bit concerning. I think we might lose quite a lot if other councils go down that route.

Joe Chapman 39:47
Yeah, definitely take that point and interesting, particularly in the context of the council having had such a strong response to its pre, to its budget consultation. I think, I'm not certain, but I would think that the saving is around the cost of administering those meetings and that will include, certainly from our own experience, that will include overseeing the recordings, doing transcripts and managing that. I mean it's a judgement to make about whether that's a reasonable estimate of the saving and how that will be realised in in kind of financial terms, but that's certainly what they've stated. 
Obviously they do cite that it has had very low numbers generally, the meetings, and they are still open for the public to attend in person, which I guess was the arrangement before they introduced the, the broadcasting. 
So yeah, an interesting choice, particularly in that specific context of that council. But they have also decided to maintain other ways of communicating with the public.

Jo Armstrong
Angela.

Angela Leitch 40:45
Thank you. Joe you might not know this, but the consequentials, the Barnett consequentials of SEND. Has that already been passed on to councils, in the usual, using the distribution formula? 

Joe Chapman
Passed on to councils? 

Angela Leitch
Oh right, sorry, have I missed?
So the, the coun… the government has received additional funding…. 

Joe Chapman
Will receive additional funding.

Angela Leitch
Will, but they haven’t had it yet? Right, OK, OK, that’s fine.
So my other question is in relation to the, the settlement with the EIS, do we have any detail of that?

Joe Chapman 41:22
I haven't seen what that consists of and what is part of that agreement. It will be interesting to see what that is and whether it resolves the kind of wider dispute or whether it's just sufficient to have reached an agreement whereby it was agreed that the strikes wouldn't go ahead, perhaps there's other work continues in the, in the meantime. So yeah, I guess if it is approved by COSLA leaders tomorrow we’re likely to see more information on that. 
And just on the SEND money. So it applies to the 26/27 budget, it was announced as part of the spring statement by the UK Government, so it’s still relatively recent. So some of that, that total of the consequentials sits within 26/27, which is in relation to the UK Government providing grants to English councils to cover the debts they have amassed and there's a process that those councils need to go through to get that funding. 
And then the second sort of chunk of the funding is when the UK Government is intending to take over the responsibility for funding and overseeing that provision, which is a couple of years down the line.

Jo Armstrong
Derek.

Derek Yule 42:38
Thanks, chair. You’d be disappointed, Joe, if I didn’t ask you one question!
I think it's unfortunate Alison’s maybe not the room just now. It was paragraph 11, just got me wondering slightly whether it’s something we could pick up on as part of the financial outlook report.
Because I understand the sort of press angle on this is 100 million seems a big figure, but I think you’ve put in the context of the four billion actually raised, but that's in one year. And the reality this debt will have been accumulated possibly even going back to 1993. 
So I think, I just wonder if there's something we maybe need to pick up on and it does raise a question, are we seeing a drop-off or an increase in the level of debt given the wider sort of economic situation, so it’s, I'm just sort of putting down a marker that I think it's maybe something we should pick up on as part of our next overview report, seeing if there's any trend in that, that we should, we should review.
Yeah, I know you can't do much about this press speculating, yes 100 million’s a big number, but the reality is there's a very high budget levels in council tax historically, and it's a very small proportion.

Joe Chapman 43:49
I think it's, I agree, in terms of the trend that would be the interesting thing to look at. Obviously councils will, you know, fairly regularly be writing off debts that are of a certain age and they don't think they're going to be able to recover. So is this figure bigger than it has historically been or smaller than it has historically been?
Something to look into if we if we wanted to pursue that. 

Jo Armstrong
Christine.

Christine Lester 44:11
Yeah, it was just a quick question, well actually a comment in response to what Malcolm said about them stopping the broadcasting of the council meetings. I'm just surprised at the figure of 51,000 because even if they don't broadcast it live to have it available afterwards I would have thought was useful, probably not that expensive. And in terms of public scrutiny, I would, you know, if I was a, some, living there, I would want to be able to go and look and watch what concerns me being debated, so. 
It's a dangerous precedent, as Malcolm says, if everybody thinks that's a good idea. We might have, want to have an opinion on that at some point.

Joe Chapman 44:56
In practice it would still be quite a significant requirement in terms of meeting accessibility requirements for a recording, so there wouldn't necessarily be a big difference in the, in the technical requirements and the staff requirements to administer a recording being shared online compared to…

Christine Lester
Just put it on YouTube. Can’t just put it on YouTube?

Joe Chapman
You'd have to, you'd have to have an accurate transcript. It’s what we do with the Commission meetings. 

Christine Lester
Yeah, yeah, I know that.

Joe Chapman
There’s a process over a week to have the transcript accurate for a recording to then be shared online.

Jo Armstrong
Nichola.

Nichola Brown 45:35
Yeah, just picking up your paragraph 16, Joe, about the UK Government's reform around SEND in England, different terminology from what we have here, but thanks for mentioning that the Scottish review has been published today. 
I just wanted, more of a comment than a question. I've delved a wee bit into this out of interest and. The white paper, the English white paper is obviously caused a lot of controversy and everybody will have seen the kind of public outcry in the press. But there is more within the white paper than simply the SEND reviews, reforms rather, and there is, there is aspects of the white paper that are around the recruitment and retention of teachers, which I do wonder whether there's something in there that might be worth us looking at, albeit the systems that are different.
But there's also something in there, and it's expanded on in Bridget Phillipson’s paper, every child achieving and thriving, which seems to be a subset of the white paper. And I just, I need to look into this more, but in addition to looking at children with additional support needs, there's, and it was picked up by the BBC, there's a comment in there about this new, this set of reforms transforming outcomes for white working-class children who are currently being left behind. And it’s quite a bold statement. 
So I mention it more because I'm intending to kind of look into that a bit more. Presumably there's a strong evidence base otherwise such a statement wouldn't be made, but it strikes me as quite unusual. So, just for noting, really, but look forward to reading the Scottish review.

Jo Armstrong
Mike.

Michael Neilson 47:43
My, it's really a question, not really expecting an answer today, but this issue of how the, as it were… 
This funding is obviously not hypothecated, so it's up to Scottish Government what they do in relation to the SEND money, but to get some sort of sense of the equivalence or otherwise between the funding that is coming through as a result of the decisions in England and the sort of the financial scale of the existing challenge in in Scotland would be really would, I think, be really helpful.

Joe Chapman 48:24
A difficult one to pin down, I guess, when we don't yet know where the government intends to put that money, so which financial and service challenges it's hoping to address with that. There are obviously calls for, for example, some unions have called for the funding, the extra funding to the Scottish Government to be used in relation to additional support provision, pupil support assistants. But until we have that clarity, I guess it's hard to pin down how big a difference the extra amount of money would make in the context of whichever areas the government is choosing to put the money towards, if that makes sense, but it's something to definitely keep an eye on.

Michael Neilson 49:01
I'm not familiar enough with what we've done in the past on this, but the work we've done in the past might give some indication of the scale that, the gap for local government on this. Since it, it's identified in most, most lists of financial pressures on councils.

Jo Armstrong 49:23
We might ask Blyth and the team to be mindful of when they’re pulling the report together, yeah.
Any other questions for…? Jennifer.

Jennifer Henderson 49:33
More of an observation, I suppose, Jo. I just, and it's part of what we talked a little bit about it yesterday, but this question about rural sustainability and sustainability of rural communities. It's, it was particularly prevalent in this report, I think, that that came through as quite a strong theme in a number of areas and, a bit like Nichola, when you see the links in this report you delve into the detail, so I went off and read the Scottish Government, the Parliament's committee report about this, and it does feel like an area that we will need to start to make sure is a thread in all our work, which I know we are going to do, because it just does seem to be coming more and more to the fore that the gap between living in a rural community and a more urban community, there are particular challenges that we need to have a keen eye on, so more of an observation, Jo, than a a kind of question, but it's very stark, I thought, on this report.

Jo Armstrong 50:30
Joe’s report helps us and prompts us and gives us lines of thought for other bits of work. So thanks for that. Thanks, Joe, if there's no other questions? Thank you. 
Which takes us to item 8, which is my update. 
You've got my list of appointments and meetings that I’ve been through. I just wanted to pick up two or three of them. 
One was the meeting that Andrew and I had COSLA President and Vice President around issues of concern for me and issues that they see us having a kind of an input to their thinking. 
Their view on the spending review makes transformation more challenging, which I think is quite interesting given the conversations we had this morning around transformation challenges around delivering on that. 
The Verity House Agreement accountability and assurance framework. They are meeting with the First Minister to discuss a high level framework, and we will be asked to be involved at some point, quite when and what, we’re not sure. 
We talked about our work programme and the links with the Solace/IS Crerar work was something that was discussed, and we've agreed we will meet twice a year and probably meet at a COSLA special interest group too, so that we've got a chance to meet on specific issues rather than just the general leaders overview.
And then I had a meeting with Ellen Leaver, our, the acting director of the Scottish Government for local government division, and she remains positive about our work and believes our impact is growing, so I think that's a, that’s a good sign. I'm happy to pick up any questions anybody might have. Christine.

Christine Lester 52:12
Christine, just a quick question, request really Jo. I see you've got a forthcoming Audit Scotland board meeting with the risk deep dive in managing our reputation. I'm assuming that's Audit Scotland's reputation, which by default is both of our reputations, so it would be good to know how that goes.

Jo Armstrong
Helena has been involved in dealing with that. We've had a conversation about making sure the Accounts Commission… 

Christine Lester
Yeah. That’ll be interesting. Thank you.

Jo Armstrong
It will be picked up.
Any other questions?
Jennifer.

Jennifer Henderson 52:47
Only just to say, I note, Jo, you're going to the Deloitte state of the state event this evening. I think it would be interesting to, next meeting, get a sort of your reflections on what you've taken away from that.

Jo Armstrong 52:58
I'm looking forward to that. I didn't manage last year. So I'm looking forward to seeing it this year. 
OK, any other thoughts? 
I think that takes us to any other public business anybody wants to raise. 
That basis, I’ll ask Lee to switch off the recording.