Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Millie Patel and Lesle Smith along with Councillor S. Butt as Councillor L. Smiths notified substitute.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

David Ewart (Independent Chair) declared a personal interest as a member of CIPFA.

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

There were no deputations considered at the meeting.

4.1      To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday 16 June 2025 as a correct record.

(Agenda republished to include the attached minutes on 22 July 2025)

4.2      To note the updated Action Log from previous meetings of the Audit & Standards Advisory Committee.

(Agenda republished to include an updated version of the Action Log on 23 July 25)

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday 16 June 2025 be approved as a correct record.

Members noted the updates provided in relation to the Action Log of issues identified at previous meetings along with action log item 3 items being addressed as an unnecessary compilation of the list. It was agreed by the Committee for the item to be removed following the meeting, with it having completed its intended goal of facilitating the removal of 5 other items from the log.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

Ben Ainsworth (Head of Finance) provided an update on the annual accounts, explaining that the council had delayed publication of the accounts due to issues identified during a senior management review. He reported that the finance team had been working hard since the audit finished in February to address audit improvements recommended by Grant Thornton but had discovered major issues with the recording of Property, Plant and Equipment, particularly relating to valuations. The senior management review had also identified problems with the implementation of IFRS 16, the new lease accounting standards that affect leases, PFIs, and SPFIs, as well as specific issues with accounting for PFI buyers. To address these complex accounting problems, the council had brought in external advisors who were still working to understand the proper accounting treatment required. The committee agreed to defer detailed discussion of the accounts matters until Item 11 under the auditors' report, allowing for a consolidated discussion of all account-related issues at that point in the meeting.

To receive a report from the Director Strategic Commissioning, Capacity Building and Engagement providing an update on progress with the Procurement Review.

Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) introduced the report, outlining the details and providing the committee with a comprehensive update on the procurement review and service updates. He outlined the Embrace Change transformation program and referenced the previously issued Grant Thornton recommendations presented to the Committee in February 2025, which emphasised the council's constant focus on best delivery practices. Rhodri Rowlands then explained that external expertise had been brought in from January to April 2025 to conduct a thorough review. He elaborated on one key aspect of the review, which was to identify areas of strength within the procurement function as well as those requiring further development. He noted that while the Council's procurement practices were legally compliant and operated within appropriate legislation, the review had identified several key findings that were preventing procurement from fully meeting the council's strategic objectives. The main issues identified within this included a cultural problem around procurement practices, with functions not being sufficiently strategic or creative in their approaches. Also highlighted was the need for additional capacity, as well as greater clarity regarding roles and responsibilities, both within the procurement function itself and in relation to other council services. The highlights of Rhodri Rowland’s update on the Procurement Review are summarised below:

·            Regarding the Council’s Improvement program’s implementation, Rhodri Rowland spoke on the efforts being made to address challenges through the implementation of a wide-ranging improvement program. A single forum and vehicle had been established to deliver all recommendations, with all actions focused through this central mechanism. Both the Corporate Management Team and the Policy Coordination Group had approved the program, and delivery was already in action with good progress reported since approval. The areas of improvement included revised governance structures, enhanced delivery and assurance processes, and operational changes to day-to-day leadership. A roles and responsibilities outline protocol had been drafted, and positive progress had been made in this area as well.

·            Moving to discuss the Council’s procurement strategies, Councillor Ruben (Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Community Power) expressed the desire to move toward a more strategic procurement function, one that would better align with political priorities and examine the products and services the council purchases. He took the opportunity to also formally invite Councillors Chan and Molloy to attend the future meetings being held on the topic to represent the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee.

The Chair thanked Rhodri Rowlands for his update and following this opened up the floor to any questions or concerns held by the Committee. The Chair also took this opportunity to clarified to members that the committee's role was not that of a scrutiny committee but rather to examine and obtain assurance on specific matters. The highlights of the questions asked by members of the Committee have been summarised below:

·            Beginning the discussion, members inquired over the running of the Council’s strategic direction and governance. Members expressed a desire to move toward a more strategic procurement function across the council, that would better  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report sets out the outturn for the Council’s Treasury Management Activities for 2024-25 updating members on both borrowing and investment decisions in the context of prevailing economic conditions and the Council’s Treasury Management performance.

Nadeem Akhtar (Senior Finance Analyst) introduced the report which would cover the Treasury Management activities for the previous financial year.  Nadeem Akhtar began by stating that the presentation on the report had come to the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee for scrutiny before its eventual submission to Brent’s Cabinet. He explained that the report, with four appendices, updated members on the borrowing and investment decisions made by corporate and financial resources under delegated authority. The highlights from the report are summarised below:

·            The Council had complied with its prudential indicators for the 2024-25 financial year, which were initially set at full council in February 2024, with no breach of indicators reported. Outstanding debt as of March 2025 was stated to stand at just over £900 million, having increased from £814 million at the start of the financial year (correcting an initial figure mentioned as £894 million), representing a net change of £86 million. This change in debt resulted from raising new borrowings of £170 million while paying back £84 million of existing debt, with the borrowed funds used to finance the capital program. Cash investments as of March 2025 totalled £47 million, having decreased from £95 million at the start of the financial year, representing a change of approximately £48 million. The council's capital financing requirement, which represents the underlying need to borrow, had changed from £1.25 billion to £1.35 billion, a net increase of £100 million, again reflecting forecast investment made in the capital programme. The council's rate of return on cash investments decreased during the year from 5.3% to 4.5%, reflecting numerous changes in the Bank of England's base rate during the course of the year. The statutory charge for repayment of debt, known as minimum revenue provision (MRP), was just under £20 million and excludes PFI schemes.

The chair acknowledged the scale of the figures, noting that with £900 million of debt, even slight movements in rates would make significant differences. The Chair then congratulated the Finance Team for managing to reduce the average cost of borrowing in a rising interest rate environment. Following this, the Chair opened the floor to questions from the Committee with the highlights of these questions summarised below:

·            Regarding budgetary developments, members raised concerns about the capital financing requirement being forecasted to reach £1.5 billion against an authorised limit of £1.5 billion, questioning officer on whether there was concern given that markets showed no real signs of interest rates decreasing. Debt maturity was also discussed, with members noting that significant debt was maturing within the year and asking about potential refinancing strategies. Amanda Healy (Deputy Director of Finance for Investment and Infrastructure) responded that CFR increases are ultimately driven by the capital programme. When looking at new capital programme schemes for inclusion, they examine affordability, with the most significant growth in the capital programme relating to affordable housing development, which has underlying cash flows to enable asset delivery and debt repayment. She explained they work closely with treasury management advisors to evaluate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a report providing an update on implementation of the FM Code.

Michael Armand (Senior Finance Analyst) introduced the report, providing an update on the council's progress in implementing the CIPFA Financial Management Code since the previous update provided to the Committee in February 2024. The report was structured into two main sections. Section 4 provided an update on the council's progress against each of the 17 financial management standards included in the CIPFA Financial Management Code. Section 5 presented the report’s conclusion that the Council was continuing to broadly comply with the code while acknowledging areas requiring continuous improvement through implementation of external auditor recommendations. The highlights of the report are summarised below:

·            Significant Financial Challenges had been identified, with the external auditor having identified a significant weakness in the area of financial sustainability for 2023-24 and 2024-25, primarily due to the council's continued use of reserves to fund overspends on homelessness services and temporary accommodation. This led to several recommendations including increasing the level of usable reserves, improvements to monitoring and reporting of statement delivery, MTFS risk register updates, and enhanced scenario planning. The council had then addressed these concerns in the 2025-26 budget approved in February, which was set on the basis of not continuing to use reserves for unplanned expenditure. Growth was built into the budget to address significant pressures, particularly in areas such as homelessness. The budget included difficult decisions regarding savings and updates to the council tax support scheme effective from April 1, enabling a balanced budget without relying on reserves.

·            Section 4 of the report discussed the council's journey along the hierarchy of financial management styles linked to the three Es. Economy: The council maintained a well-established approach to budget setting focused on making available funding stretch further and taking necessary difficult decisions. Efficiency: Since the last update, a budget assurance panel had been established providing additional scrutiny of budgets and performance against targets. The council had also undertaken more benchmarking activity and enhanced performance reporting to provide indicators for management and members. Effectiveness: Financial management was recognized as a dynamic task involving the whole council. The Embrace Change portfolio was listed to be transforming how the council worked to tackle current and emerging challenges while maintaining sustainable finances.

·            Beyond the external audit, several other reviews had taken place including a corporate peer review, an internal audit review of financial management, and a critical friendly review of the MTFS model by Oliver Wyman. All recommendations from these reviews would be taken forward as part of Brent’s efforts in implementing the CIPFA financial management code.

Following this, the Chair opened the floor to any questions or concerns held by members of the Committee. The key highlights of these questions have been summarised below: 

·            Regarding the HRA Business Plans monitoring, members asked about paragraph 5.3 of the report, specifically who conducts this monitoring and whether council officers or councillors are involved. Amanda Healy (Deputy Director Investment and Infrastructure) responded that the HRA business plan was presented as part of the budget setting process and was publicly available,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This report continues the cycle of regular updates that the Emergency Planning team provide for the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee. The report provides the Committee with an update on the work and priorities of the team since the last update in September 2024.

The Emergency Preparedness Report was taken as read by the Committee, with members proceeding directly to questions and discussion.

As such, the Chair opened the floor to any questions or concerns from the Committee. The highlights of the questions raised are summarised below:

·            Inquiries were made about the debrief process, specifically asking whether it involved the fire brigade and other emergency resources, and whether such processes were always handled sensitively. Darren Armstrong responded, noting that the approach used involved a combination of various emergency services and stakeholders. He explained reviews looking at responses to tragic incidents largely focused on evaluating how well responses were managed whilst identifying any areas for improvement. It was noted that while the initial incident response had been recorded as excellent, recovery phases often continued well beyond the first 24-48 hours of the incident. This was felt particularly keenly through the Council’s support of families involved in incidents, with many needing temporary housing for long periods of time. Emphasis was given to the Council’s position that resilience was the responsibility of everybody at the Council and that there was considerable reliance on maintaining a collaborative approach.

·            Approval of the report was noted by members, with the document seen to be live with healthy and reassuring changes. Questions were raised over if any emergency planning for civil disobedience or rioting had been planned. Darren Armstrong confirmed that such scenarios had been considered within the inherent risks framework and were fed into current planning processes received from the broader London risk register. He explained that work was conducted internally with colleagues, with internal warning signs monitored and information and intelligence shared throughout the Council frequently.

·            Regarding preparations required for the implementation of Martyn's Law, members asked whether any reviews were being conducted to help smoothen the implementation process and whether additional CCTV was being considered. Darren Armstrong indicated that a broader update on this topic would be brought to the next committee meeting as part of the strategic risk report, which included emergency planning as one of their strategic inherent risks. He explained they were in the initial stages of considering the factors mentioned, as their main focus over the past twelve months had been on their own improvement plan from an independent inspection report and responding to the Grenfell inquiry phase two report. The team had only recently turned attention to Martyn's Law, with a fuller update promised for the September meeting. An action was noted for this item to be included in future proceedings. Clarification was sought about Martyn's Law thresholds, noting the legislation's specific guidelines of internal events with 200 people or more and external ticketed events with 800 or more. Members asked whether the council would look at approaches for smaller numbers to build in best practices beyond these specific thresholds. Darren Armstrong confirmed this approach aligned with the team's ethos of achieving best-in-class standards. He assured that they wouldn't just adhere to legislative minimums but would look across the full spectrum, aiming for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

This report summarises the outcomes of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee for the municipal year 2024-25.

10. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee

The Chair introduced the report, thanking Darren Armstrong (Deputy Director Organisational Assurance and Resilience) for circulating the report and Harry Ellis (Governance Officer) for compiling member’s responses. He then expressed gratitude to members for their comprehensive and frank responses to the self-assessment survey. The Chair noted that the responses indicated a need to improve performance rather than to completely transform operations. Several key themes emerged from the member responses with members expressing a clear desire to broaden input from officers beyond the finance department, seeking wider representation from all teams and departments across the Council. Significant concerns were raised about both the timeliness and length of agendas, with members highlighting issues around short notice distribution. Members also requested more oversight reports focusing on forward planning and deep dive investigations. Strong emphasis was placed on the need for better follow-up of audit recommendations and ongoing monitoring of progress; various general concerns were also identified regarding internal audit, including questions about structure, role, and working relationships. The Chair acknowledged that given the volume of work ahead, the Committee would need to significantly improve its approach to avoid falling behind. It was proposed that, to help maintain members understanding of the field, internal audit training be arranged for the next available timeslot, with officers noting that September was already allocated to a session on standards training. Training would cover current internal audit methods and approaches, the new risk-based audit approach and its implementation over the past year, as well as a detailed examination of internal audit operations. In response to ideas of outsourcing the workload of the Committee, the Chair clarified to members that the Committee already operated a co-sourced model, with PwC providing specialist number of hours annually, particularly in areas such as cyber security where in-house expertise was not feasible or cost effective.

Following the Chair’s report, he opened the floor to any questions or concerns held by members of the Committee, with the key highlights of these summarised below:

·            Committee members commended the self-improvement initiative, commending recent efforts to broaden departmental input, observed in recent items on DSG, housing regulations and procurement investigation. Member’s requested additional suggestions from all Committee members for future departmental involvements.

·            Regarding possible improvements to be made to the Committee, members praised recent meetings for implementing a policy requiring officers to avoid verbal updates on routine items unless urgent or substantive matters arose. Potential joint training opportunities with other London authorities were then suggested to leverage shared expertise and knowledge. One member highlighted the value of establishing a structured deep dive program similar to those used by other audit committees, suggesting this should be integrated into the annual work program. Within the discussion around this idea, members noted that the topics of cybersecurity and artificial intelligence could be expanded on. The possible establishment of time-limited working groups between committee meetings, to facilitate more effective deep dive investigations was suggested, noting the practical limitations of conducting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The paper provides the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee with a report on progress in delivering Grant Thornton’s responsibilities as the Council’s external auditors. It also includes a summary of emerging national issues and developments that may be relevant to Brent as a local authority.

Sophia Brown (Grant Thornton) introduced the report, presenting the external audit progress report to the Committee. She confirmed that the audit plan previously brought to the Committee was now final with no further changes required, as no additional risks or risk factors had been identified during planning closure. The key highlights of the update to the Committee are summarised below:

·            The auditors had commenced fieldwork on 16^th of June 2025 in the absence of draft financial statements from the Council, working with the finance team on areas where progress was possible. Sophia Brown explained that while there was always risk in starting work before receiving draft financial statements, management had provided assurances that the listings being worked on would not change. If balances did subsequently change, additional testing might be required in those areas. Sophia Brown noted that Grant Thornton’s PFI expert on accounting was still to return to work, which added stress on top of the work required for IFRS 16.

·            The auditors were working closely with the finance team to receive updates on when draft accounts and the Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE) note would be available. The biggest pieces of work that could not yet commence were the PPE valuation work and journals testing. To manage resources effectively, some team members had been released in recent weeks to avoid waste, with plans to bring people back once draft accounts were received on Friday.

·            Sophia Brown then highlighted that the PPE note was a key component touching different areas of the accounts. She emphasised the risk to completing the audit by the September deadline, explaining they were in week six of the audit with summer holidays approaching. Additional resources had been secured for October if the September deadline was missed, to avoid repeating the previous year's approach of returning in January. The auditors noted that the expected financial statements would contain several material prior period adjustments, and they were still awaiting expert input on PFI accounting treatment. Sophia Brown indicated that while meeting the September deadline would be very challenging, it remained doable if everything proceeded without any issues, though she cautioned against raising expectations too high.

The Chair thanked Sofia Brown and Grant Thronton for their work, and the floor was opened to any questions or concerns from members of the Committee, with the key highlights summarised below:

·            Regarding the account’s deadline, the Committee asked about the likelihood of meeting the September deadline. Sophie Brown responded, noting that it would be very challenging but possibly achievable if no issues arose, though she emphasised the substantial workload remaining and the impact of summer leave periods.

·            Following this, members sought clarification on the meaning of "value for money" within the audit progress reports context. Sophia Brown explained that their work followed the National Audit Office code, examining value for money under three areas: financial sustainability, governance, and the three E's (economy, efficiency, and effectiveness). Within this context ‘value for money’ would highlight areas where arrangements could be improved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To consider and note the Committee’s Work Programme for the 2025-26 Municipal Year.

The Chair briefly addressed the Committee, stating that given the uncertainty concerning the completion of the accounts and heavy content scheduled for discussion at the September and December meetings of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, an additional meeting of the Committee might be required. This would depend on future developments, members of the Committee would be informed on when the details were finalised. It was also noted that if a meeting did occur in November, it would be important to keep discussion focused solely on the key points required.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Deputy Director Democratic & Corporate Governance or their representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

None.