Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies from Members of the Panel.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dave Sullivan.

Apologies for leaving early were given by Councillor Nick Williams.

The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda.

There were no items of urgent business.

Members to declare any personal and financial interests in items on the agenda. Attention is drawn to the Council’s Constitution; the Council’s Code of Conduct and associated advice.

Resolved -

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies is noted.

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2025.

No motion or discussion may take place upon the Minutes except as to their accuracy, and any question on this point will be determined by a majority of the Members of the body attending who were present when the matter in question was decided. Once confirmed, with or without amendment, the person presiding will sign the Minutes

Resolved –

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Panel held on 22 January 2025 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

To consider and comment upon each Audit Completion Report (ACR) and amendments to the 2023/24 draft accounts. To refer any comments on to Council scheduled for 26 February 2025.

The report was presented by the Director of Resources. He highlighted that the Royal Borough of Greenwich was one of the few councils in the country to meet the government's deadline in relation to auditing.

The Panel was addressed by Suresh Patel, Partner – Public and Social Sector (Forvis Mazar). He indicated that they were proposing an unqualified opinion on both the Council's accounts and on the Pension Fund accounts. He noted it had taken a little bit longer to complete the Council's accounts, unlike the Pension Fund accounts; the lessons learned were to be clearer on expectations to ensure that next year the process was far quicker. He highlighted that seemed like that were more misstatements but that was to be expected with a new audit team on their first audit and was not evidence of any systematic weaknesses in the Council's financial reporting arrangements. He thanked Finance Officers for helping to meet the government’s deadlines.

The Panel was addressed by Tom Greensill, Audit Manager (Forvis Mazar). He took the Panel through the auditors’ report.

The Chair thanked the auditors for their report.

In response to questions from the Panel, Suresh Patel (Forvis Mazar) replied that the value for money element was expected on 26 February. The Director of Resources added the deadline was the end of February, and both the auditor and Officers were committed to ensuring that was met.

In response to questions from the Panel, the auditors replied the asset valuation error rate was higher, but not the highest, compared to other councils, and that might be due to the size of the portfolios, the complexity of the valuations, or the way the audit sample was stratified. The issue had arisen in relation to a parcel of land which was to be developed and the completion phase extended beyond the 12 months on the balance sheet and so as a technicality it did not meet the criteria of an asset held for sale. It was indicated that the majority of councils had similar reporting with regard to financial sustainability; the auditors would get concerned when the use of reserves was an issue that did not get resolved, they auditors would then seek to understand why and what the impact was on the overall unallocated general fund. It was confirmed that a commentary would be supplied with the recommendation in relation to value for money and the arrangements for the delivery of the savings.

In relation to reserves, the Director of Resources advised the Panel that there was a marked difference between 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 in that the use of planned reserves decreased and would now be next to nil. If something unexpected occurred then they would have to deploy risk reserves. If was the view of Finance Officers that the general reserve of £19 million was an appropriate sum; the single year settlements that local authorities had been receiving created a higher degree of uncertainty in terms of the council's financial position which had to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider the Treasury Management and Capital Strategy for 2025/26 and refer the arrangements to Full Council.

The report was presented by the Interim Assistant Director of Finance & Deputy s151 Officer. The Director of Resources commented on the capital bids and added that there was no change in the risk profile.

In response to questions from the Panel the Director of Resources explained that the resource deficit was slightly lower than in the past. The Director confirmed that the Council was very much aware of the risk from various types of borrowing schemes; instead, there had been some straight borrowing from the PWLB and there had been some ordinary LOBOs, all of which had been planned out to reduce expose to refinancing risk. The Director indicated that in terms of savings sometimes there would be a difference from the original estimate, but while there would be some underdelivery what was being demonstrated was a potential net overdelivery. The Director confirmed that the Carbon Neutral Plan was taken into account and that it would have a  significant impact on the strategies and plans of the Council.

Resolved –

1.            That the Treasury Management Strategy for 2025/26 as set out in appendix A be noted and that it be referred to Full Council.

2.            That the Capital Strategy for 2025/26 (including increased pothole funding of £0.8m) set out in appendix B be noted and that it be referred to Full Council.

3.            That the Prudential Indicators for the period 2023/24-2027/28 in appendix C be noted and that they be referred to Full Council.

4.            That the arrangements for determining the Minimum Revenue Provision for 2025/26 as set out in appendix D be noted and that they be referred to Full Council.

To note and comment on the Royal Borough’s Strategic Risk Register.

The report was presented by the Assistant Director of Resources (Financial Governance, Revenues & Audit).

In response to questions from the Head of Financial Governance, Insurance & Risk noted that most local authorities would be facing the same risks so it could be expected that they would have similar sort of risk scores. She confirmed that the risk of conflict from the use of GOAT was noted and added that the intention was for the risk champions’ department to take  responsibility. The Assistant Director of Resources (Financial Governance, Revenues & Audit) added that they were trying to embed risk management across the organization

The Director of Resources indicated that Officers would be bringing  forward the workforce strategy in the coming months, but actions were still being undertaken in the meantime. At the Overview and Scrutiny meeting on 30 January it had been noted that there had been a significant reduction in spend on agency workers, largely due to enhanced recruitment controls

Resolved –

1.            That the Royal Borough’s Strategic Risk Register agreed by the Greenwich Management Team (Appendices A, B and C) be noted.

2.            To note the outcome of the external desktop review of the Council’s revised Risk Management Toolkit and Strategic Risk Register (Appendix D) be noted.

3.            That the progress made on identified actions and risk improvement recommendations to further embed risk management across the Council (Appendix E) be noted.

4.            That the Royal Borough’s Strategic Risk Register will be presented to Cabinet and Full Council be noted.