Audit and Governance Committee - Tuesday 19 May 2026, 10:00am

Audit and Governance Committee
Tuesday, 19th May 2026 at 10:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Matthew Walsh

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Leslie Ashton - Principal Committees and Governance Services Officer
Cllr Matthew Walsh

2 Declarations of interest

Share this agenda point

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

4 External Audit Plans 2025/26 Buckinghamshire Council and Buckinghamshire Pension Fund

Share this agenda point

Cllr Robert Carington
Sarah Brown
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Martin Tett
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Chris Poll
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Chris Poll
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Chris Poll
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Russell Heppleston
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Martin Tett
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Martin Tett
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Matthew Walsh
David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer
Cllr Martin Tett
David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer
Cllr Martin Tett
David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Fiona Jump - Deputy Chief Finance Officer
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Fiona Jump - Deputy Chief Finance Officer
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Matthew Walsh
David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Matthew Walsh
David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Chris Poll
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Chris Poll
Sarah Brown - KPMG
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Matthew Walsh

5 Audit and Governance Committee Annual Report to Council

Share this agenda point

A&G Annual Report to Council

Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Matthew Walsh

6 PMO Assurance Review Progress Report

Share this agenda point

Report for PMO Assurance Review Progress Report

Jo Baschnonga
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Simon Rouse
Jo Baschnonga
Cllr Simon Rouse
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Martin Tett
Jo Baschnonga
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Martin Tett
Russell Heppleston
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Jo Baschnonga
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Jo Baschnonga
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Alan Sherwell
Cllr Matthew Walsh

7 Contract Procedure Rules – Waivers & Breaches

Share this agenda point

Report for Contract Procedure Rules – Waivers & Breaches

Cllr Robert Carington
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Martin Tett
Cllr Robert Carington
Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support
Cllr Martin Tett
Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support
Cllr Simon Rouse
Cllr Robert Carington
Cllr Simon Rouse
Cllr Robert Carington
Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support
Cllr Simon Rouse
Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Simon Rouse
Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support
Cllr Simon Rouse
Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support
Cllr Simon Rouse
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Matthew Walsh
Cllr Robert Carington

8 Action Log

Share this agenda point

Action Log

9 Work Programme

Share this agenda point

A and G Work Programme 26 - 27 NEW FORMAT

10 Date of the next meeting

Share this agenda point

11 Exclusion of the public

Share this agenda point

Cllr Matthew Walsh
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:00:00

Good morning everyone and welcome to the Audit and Governance Committee here at the Gateway

on the 19th of May. A particular warm welcome to all those residents joining us on webcast

this morning. We'll start with Agenda Item 1 which is apologies.

1 Apologies

Leslie Ashton - Principal Committees and Governance Services Officer - 0:00:20

Thank you Chairman, we've received apologies from Councillors Clarke, Dixon and Wilson

and we've got a membership change. We've got Councillor Stutchbury here who's replaced

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:00:30

Councillor Chilton. Thank you. Welcome Councillor Stutchbury to the Audit and

Governance Committee. We look forward to working with you. Gender item 2

2 Declarations of interest

declarations of interest. Do members have any declarations of interest they wish

to declare? None. Thank you very much. Gender item 3 the minutes to approve as

3 Minutes

a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 26th of March 2026

already circulated to members. Are there any questions? No. Can I take those

minutes to be approved, please.

Thank you very much.

That then moves us onto agenda item four,

4 External Audit Plans 2025/26 Buckinghamshire Council and Buckinghamshire Pension Fund

which is the external audit plans 2025 -26

for Buckinghamshire Council and Buckinghamshire Pension Fund,

which is on page seven of your report.

And I will hand over to Councillor Carrington.

Do you want to do an introduction?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Cllr Robert Carington - 0:01:20

And just very briefly, so that's the name on the tin,

the external auditors have produced their audit plans for 25 -26 as attached as appendices

to the report. These will be presented today to provide committee with the opportunity

to review the proposed approach and scope. I can reassure you that officers have fully

engaged with KPMG during the entire planning process and as you've already said, a reminder

this is not just the council, this is also the pension fund committees which will then

be considered by the pension fund themselves next month.

I now hand over Sarah Brown, partner at KPMG,

to present the plans.

Thank you very much.

Sarah Brown - 0:02:07

So yes, as has been introduced,

we've got two reports for the committee.

The first is the external audit plan

for the order of the council,

and the second is the external audit plan

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:02:18

for the order of the pension fund.

I think it's worth noting that the pension fund report

also goes through the pension fund committee for challenge and review so

I probably wasn't proposing to go through the pension fund report in as

much detail but obviously very happy to take any questions that members might

have. In terms of the audit for the council this is the second year that KPMG

are your external auditors and I think it's fair to say that year one felt like

probably more for your team as well as ours, that it was almost a year -long audit.

But I think we learned an awful lot during that time.

We were provided with everything that we needed.

And actually, although we didn't sign until close to the backstop,

we got through an awful lot of work in that first year that was put in a really good place for this year.

And so in terms of the timetable, the backstop date is been moved forward

just a month next year to January.

We are anticipating that the,

what I describe as business as usual element of the audit,

we're aiming to have completed

so that we can report that to the November committee.

There will be an element of build back assurance work

that I'll come onto in a moment

that will mean that we should be in a position to sign

well ahead of the end of January backstop.

And although I'm jumping forward a little bit,

I think it is important for the committee members to appreciate that the backstop for FY 27 then moves to November.

So next year will be quite crucial in that.

Again, apologies to the team.

There'll be an audit that will finish in January and then then we'll sort of have to accelerate the timetable.

So a lot of the work that we're going to be doing over the coming months is not only focused on obviously completing the audit for FY 26,

but making sure that we're doing as much as we possibly can to build back

assurance to put us in a really good place for FY 27 acknowledging that

timetables coming forward and I think appreciating what we've heard from this

committee that you're keen that we move away from a disclaimed opinion as

quickly as possible. So there's a few slides in the kind of introduction

from page five that talk about rebuilding assurance and again at the

I'm very happy to take any specific questions.

But I think in terms of where we are,

we've completed our build back risk assessment,

which the PSAA required us to do by July of this year.

We completed that quite a while ago actually

for Buckinghamshire, so we're in a very good place.

We've identified what it is that we need to do.

And there's a few things that we are focused on.

The key areas that will take most of the time are around the valuation of London buildings, which is perhaps

Unsurprising but we are management have already proposed an approach

to apply some

indexation the years that haven't been valued and

Subject to that going through some additional review internally

We're kind of comfortable that the approach that's been suggested is sensible

There's also some work that we need to do around infrastructure assets and

particularly the categorization of those assets. So a big focus really on the

the asset base which again you might expect. So that's all been planned in for

later in the year in support of the broader audit. Then if we move on to

describe as a business as usual element of the FY26 audit, we've set out

materiality on page seven.

The high level materiality hasn't significantly changed.

It's still 2 % of total expenditure, which is kind of broadly in line with what we'd

expect to see for an authority of this size.

I think it is worth noting that our performance materiality has increased from 50 % to 65 %

without going into too much technical audit detail.

essentially that just reflects what we consider to be a reduced risk from this being a second

year audit. And we've obviously got to know your systems and processes and we didn't identify

a significant number of audit adjustments or control deficiencies in the prior year.

So that puts you more in the kind of normal range as opposed to the higher risk we see

as year one. Then we go on to the significant and other audit risks. On page 12 of our report

is the summary.

Those are largely unchanged from the previous year.

The risks themselves indeed are unchanged

from the previous year.

So valuation of investment property is a significant one

simply because it's highly subjective

and there's judgement involved.

Management override is the standard risk

that we have to apply.

And then we've got pensions

and valuation of land and buildings.

You may recall that last year we had another

higher assessed audit risk in relation to expected credit loss, so effectively in relation

to the recoverability of funding to subsidiary organisations.

We didn't identify any particular issues.

Management did do some good work in coming up with very immaterial credit loss.

So whilst it's still something we'll look at, we don't think it's a higher assessed

risk anymore.

And then the remainder of the report just sets out information more or more for information.

And so it talks about our rebuttal of revenue and expenditure.

Fraud risks, we don't consider that to be a particular fraud risk.

And then there's some further information around our approach to the group audit.

Final thing I'll say on the audit of the council is as in previous years,

we also have a remit to look at value for money.

So that will also obviously continue to be an area of focus.

We intend to bring to the next committee,

our value for money risk assessment

and report any significant weaknesses or not,

that we identify in the same way

as we did in the previous year.

There is a bit more detail in the report,

but I will just pause there and take any questions.

Thank you very much for that Sarah.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:08:48

Okay, I'm hanging over to members for questions.

Councillor Tett.

Yes, thank you very much.

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:08:54

On what we have as page 21, I think it might be your page 11, you refer to due to the current

levels of uncertainty.

And I just wondered if you could clarify a little bit, is that uncertainty with regard

to the council's finances?

Is it regard to the sector?

Or is it due to the economy and the global position?

It's just they are very different.

And it's very unclear from here which you're referring to.

You won't believe how many questions I've had

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:09:22

at audit committees asking the same thing.

So it's a very valid question that we should clarify.

It's the economic and global uncertainty,

not necessarily, or it isn't particular

to Buckinghamshire Council.

We're reflecting the fact that our significant,

our risk assessment is always iterative.

So there may be things that obviously come up

in relation to the council that we clearly need to consider.

So we'll always continue that risk assessment,

but it's really more about considering the kind of economic

and geopolitical position that if anything were to change

that caused a particular issue,

obviously would reflect that in our risk assessment.

I just wondered if you were referring to the government

and who might be leading it, that was all.

That's definitely part of it.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:10:10

Further questions from members?

Councillor Pohl and Councillor Slatchbury.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:10:22

It's a very comprehensive report, a lot of pages.

I was just wondering about the, and I appreciate it's a future risk, but not only the indexation,

but the risk of a supplier ceasing to be able to supply for whatever reason that I struggle

to find in the report.

Could you explain to me, you know, where we are with that

on the risk register?

Because I see you've got a risk table, but that to me seems

a significant risk at the moment.

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:10:56

And can I just clarify, is this to do with, I guess,

is there a particular supply chain that you're concerned

about just to make sure I'm answering the right question?

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:11:08

So yes, in general, but we had in the recent history,

a very significant risk of a supplier failing.

So it's that, I mean, small things matter less,

but there are bigger suppliers that could have an impact.

Yeah, absolutely.

So I guess the risks that we set out here

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:11:34

are the risks that we consider to be of most significant impact of a material misstatement

within the financial statements.

Supplier risk and understanding the supply chain is something that we consider as part

of our audit and it could well become an audit risk if we identified a particular issue.

So it's not something that we've highlighted here as an area that we think based on the

information we know today would cause a material misstatement in the financial

statements however we are very aware at the council and you know across as you'd

expect all of our clients that reliance upon the supply chain is is something

that we we do consider throughout the audit. If I may just chairman and I think

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:12:22

you have a monthly meeting to assess is that correct or is is that a separate

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:12:34

department. Yes so we're not directly involved in in those meetings our work

is more I guess we have regular meetings with the finance team we have regular

meetings with kind of various officers from around the authority we review all

of the risk register information we review the minutes of every meeting so

it's more about identifying if we see something or through inquiry we

identify something that would then cause us to heighten that risk and do more

work. Thank you and I'm just going to take this opportunity to welcome Russell

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:13:03

into his new role here at the council. I'm going to ask Russell to expand a little bit more on

that please. Thanks Chairman. Good morning everybody. So I'm the new chief

Russell Heppleston - 0:13:13

auditor and head of business insurance. I've been here for a month. You'll note

that there's a strategic risk register update on the committee papers today but

I just wanted to expand on that point.

As also the head of risk, there is a risk management framework

that we have embedded in place.

Obviously, you're aware of our risk management group.

So things like the security of the third party supply chain

is covered through our strategic risk processes

and also through our direct risk processes.

Just to reiterate the point made by our external auditors,

we do liaise.

there is a liaison between the both external

and internal audit, and we do consider their risk assessment

as part of our audit planning process.

But just to flag that certainly contract management

and commissioning is already identified as a strategic risk,

so we have embedded processes in place to keep our eye on

both the external horizon

and our internal controls around those.

Thank you very much for that.

Councillor Stutchbury.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:14:23

Thank you chair. On page 25 you have a brief summary of your risk of climate change but

no definite detail in there about how I would assess what your risk is. There are many risks

with climate change we well know there's the risk to the economy either plus or against and there's

also the simple fact that the country's running out of water

and Buckinghamshire Council is not immune

from any of those pressures.

And in fact, with the council delivering a development plan,

you don't seem to mention anything about that stuff

because that's a real financial risk to the council

to let park in that plan properly.

I just thought it was just,

we used to have lots of larger reports

before COVID on climate change.

seem to have dropped off the dial.

So an explanation in a nonpolitical way

around where that is, please.

Yeah, of course.

So I think, importantly, this report

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:15:23

is linked to our order of the financial statements.

At the moment, the obligation on the Council for Climate Change

Disclosures is relatively light, actually.

So when you compare that to what's

expected of large companies or listed companies,

there's much more that needs to be included.

So whilst there is an expectation

that there is disclosure regarding climate change

and there is some guidance, there

isn't the same level of, I guess I'd

describe it as climate change assurance that's required.

So in our remit as external auditors,

really all our remit is is to make sure

that what's included within the financial statements

is consistent with our understanding of the authority.

We don't have a remit to go any further than that.

What I would say is when we get onto our value

for money risk assessment, which we'll report

to this next committee, those wider considerations

that you're talking about in terms of the impact

on the financial position of the council

in terms of its future obligations is something

that we would take into account as part

of that value for money assessment.

So I guess it's something that we will dive into a little bit deeper as part of our value for money

But in terms of the financial statements audit level risk, it isn't at the moment a huge issue

Thank you for that broad explanation, but there's specifics in it which are known and

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:16:53

With so much development and so much

growth, we really need to be able to assess what that means for infrastructure, sewage

drains, whatever.

Because there's a risk in there, the financial risk to the council is quite high if it all

goes badly.

So I hope that your future report will be a bit more specific because the council is

going to try to land the development plan in an uncertain world.

And I think they need to understand what they quantify those risks.

and I don't think there's anything there,

and I apologise for coming back in such a way.

But I know this is a big issue, thank you.

Yeah, and again, it's not to lay the point,

but just to be really clear,

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:17:41

our remit is to look retrospectively.

So we are auditing the financial position

up to the 31st of March, 2026.

So this report is reflecting our approach

to making sure that the finances of the council

for the year two, the 31st of March, 2026,

are fairly represented within the financial statements.

So I take your point,

but I think it's a slightly different point

to the remit of external audit

for the year that we're auditing.

Where we would take it into account

is around value for money arrangements.

So if we identified that the council

was entering into any proposed plans

linked to climate change

that might put significant financial pressure on the council,

that's the type of thing that we would think about as part of our value for money considerations,

but similarly it's always for the year just gone that we are looking at.

So it might be that there's a slight disjoint between what you're

talking about in terms of the real future of the council and what our remit is as external auditors,

which is effectively looking at the 12 months just gone. Albeit when we come to value for money,

we'll also look at the current plans that the council has in place.

Thank you.

And Councillor Taff?

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:18:55

Yes. I mean, my question, my coincidence,

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:18:59

actually builds on what Councillor Stutchbury has just

asked about.

And I completely understand that your role is to look back.

I understand that's exactly what this is.

But I'm looking at the sort of risk elements of this

because we are in the middle of doing a local plan.

And there are areas of council assets which are part

of the draught proposals.

And I just wonder how the valuation of those is impacted.

So, for example, were there a large area of council land

that was then zoned within the local plan for development?

I'm assuming that's an upside.

Were that area not to be zoned ultimately,

I guess that would be a downside.

And I just wondered, maybe for the public watching as much

as anything else, and certainly for my enlightenment,

How does the audit take that into account?

And I understand you're looking back in this report,

but how do you do that transition from where you're looking back

to the risk going forward of the impact of the local plan,

particularly on the valuation of land and assets?

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:20:08

Understood. So I think it depends on the nature of the asset.

So your investment properties,

So all of your commercial assets and any land that you hold for commercial purposes is effectively valued at its fair value

and so we would consider whether there's any particular change whether your valuers have

identified a particular change in the value of that asset because perhaps

The demand has increased or the purpose for what you are using that asset may have increased

So we'd expect something like that to come through in the report from your valuers, your external valuers.

And we would use our own specialists who are real estate specialists to assess that based on their market knowledge.

For other asset types, for example, schools and perhaps other land and buildings, they're valued on a slightly different basis, which is depreciated replacement cost.

So that's less about the commercial value and more about the service potential of those

assets.

So the thing that we would need to consider is how that factors into the type of asset

that we're talking about, the basis of valuation, and whether or not it actually has an impact.

We'd expect it to have more of an impact on assets that you're using for perhaps commercial

purposes than assets that you're using for delivery of schools

or care homes because that's depreciated replacement.

So just for my clarity then and for the clarity of anybody

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:21:38

watching this, the outcome of the local plan,

which ultimately is decided upon by government,

doesn't fall into your strategic risks

that you mentioned earlier.

That is completely outside this.

And actually, it's not something you would cover

in the risk register per se.

So again, you know, without,

there's two elements to our audit.

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:22:03

One is auditing whether the financial statements

give a true and fair position

of the finances looking backwards.

Now that may, if there was an,

if the local plan and any changes on the use of assets

was in place as at the 31st of March,

that is something we might take into account

as part of the value of the land and buildings,

again, depending on the nature of those.

Where we would consider it in more detail

is as part of our value for money assessment,

because whilst, yes, it's the government

that is imposing certain things,

there are decisions that the council will be making

kind of within that remit.

And we will consider what those decisions might mean

for the council and whether there is a value for money issue

that we've identified.

So it is something that we would think about but more from a value for money perspective as opposed to

the financial statements of the year just gone by

Just looking at date would you like to come in here?

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:23:05

Just to add I think so there's

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:23:09

a series of there's the difference in terms of how we hold the assets on the balance sheet as at you know

The 31st of March each year in terms of kind of going forwards and that reflects the use that they hold it doesn't

have any hope value in in terms of some of that potential

change I think that you're alluding to in terms of that

may or may not occur in terms of kind of going through

the local planning process.

But just to reassure the committee,

so as well as the statutory accounting valuation,

if we ever came to dispose of an asset that was deemed

to be surplus in terms of going forward,

we then also undertake a development valuation

which would then potentially throw up a different

value in terms of kind of going forwards and that's the one that we would then

assess any bids that came forward against and that would be different to

the to the book value if you call it that in terms of the asset valuation

that we hold on the balance sheet. And presumably that would then be reflected

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:24:10

in next year's audit or is that a separate valuation entirely? If we

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:24:18

disposed of it it would be off our books. Well I guess what I'm trying to think of

is the, depending on when it is disposed of,

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:24:24

how that is reflected in next year's audit.

Is it reflected at the previous book value,

or is it reflected at the development value

of which it's sold?

It would depend on the class of asset

in terms of kind of going forward

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:24:37

and whether it was actually deemed surplus,

but potentially it could be held at the higher value.

Thank you.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:24:46

Councillor Collingwood.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you for the report, Sarah.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:24:57

Just curious about the process of, it talks about both in terms of valuation of land,

it talks about in terms of investment properties, it talks about the rest of it.

And also you're looking backwards to talk to, it looks like you're going to be challenging

Carthage oneness almost is how I read it,

rather than us as the council,

because obviously we're just the recipient

of what the valuations that Carthage owners have given us.

What part do we play in that process to understand,

so if you say, I don't know,

they say something's worth 100 pounds,

and you say, well actually it's only worth five pounds,

at what point do we as the council,

is it the cabinet member and the officers,

how do we make sure that's sort of,

that everyone's playing with a level and fair playing field,

if that makes sense.

So that's sort of my process piece.

So that's the first question.

I'll come back to the pension obligations in a sec,

And then in terms of management override

or management controls,

are we saying that's because that's statutorily,

everyone has to have that in there

whether we like it or not?

Because I know you and the officers

are on a massive amounts of work

on improving those management controls and override.

So I'm sort of, and risk management,

we have spent hours on this thing as well

about management controls, overrides, and the rest.

So I think the process is now correctly in place.

So I'm sitting there going, well, why is it still here?

Because we've gone from it's been okay

to trying to be exemplar.

And I'm like, we've still got it on the list.

I'm still curious.

Is it just because the government said we have to?

I'm just curious to run tonight.

But I'll come back about the pension bill in a sec.

No problem.

I'll probably say it in reverse order if that's okay.

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:26:38

So management override of controls is a statutory risk

that every single auditor,

every single organisation has to,

and I guess the reason for that is,

it may be that we have the risk,

but we conclude quite quickly

that actually everything's fine.

The reason it has to be there is because it's so clearly

linked to fraud and misappropriation.

So it's making sure that even if we think

you've got the best systems and processes and controls

in the world, there is always the potential for humans

to commit fraud.

And therefore, it makes sure that auditors

have a mind to the identification of fraud

throughout the audit.

That is essentially what it's doing.

Then in terms of your first question regarding valuation

of investment property, you are right.

The key element of our work is in challenging cartagenus.

What I would say is we do however equally challenge management in that what Carte de

Jonas are using is information provided by management initially.

So the starting point will be information provided by management and therefore the first

step of our order is actually to make sure that that data and the input is appropriate

because you know if it's all just wrong in the first place then Carte de Jonas are just

using that. So we do direct our audit at management. What Cartridge owners will then do is obviously

apply their expertise in terms of market data, rental incomes, the local area. And that's

where we use our own specialist valuers because they have access to the same, typically the

same sort of information.

So it's quite unusual that we necessarily

have a significant difference of opinion with the valuers.

Having said that, there are definite examples of times

that we do where we will consider that perhaps

that the rentals that are being applied

are a little bit aggressive.

And we will challenge that.

Ultimately, we would challenge, and it

would be down to management and this committee,

to determine whether you were comfortable with the valuation

that Carter Jonas have given

or you agree with our challenge.

Ultimately, if we don't agree,

we would qualify the accounts

and that would be kind of in our gift

to be able to do that if we felt it was appropriate.

Not expecting that.

Yona, would you like to come in at this point, please?

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:29:17

So just to Councillor Collingwood's point

Fiona Jump - Deputy Chief Finance Officer - 0:29:20

around the process that we go through

in regards to valuation.

So yes, we do have an external valuation company

who complete those for us.

But we don't accept those passively.

We challenge the results that come in,

both from a financial professional perspective.

But we also have colleagues within the council

who have appropriate property -related qualifications.

So they always take a look at what comes back

to make sure there's that challenge and cheque,

both from a financial perspective,

but also from a property -related one as well.

So it's not a passive process.

It very much is an active process of challenge

when those numbers come in.

Then one question about the pension defined obligations

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:30:02

piece, I'm slightly curious because I sit along

on the pension fund along with Councillor Coughton.

My understanding, we've had to try any evaluation

and it's come out saying we're in surplus.

So, and that's come from Barnet Waddington

who are the experts not asked.

That's them telling us that's the answer to the question.

So I'm not quite sure why you're revisiting that again,

because the experts have told us the answer to the question is X.

So I'm not, again, curious as to why that's part of the process.

If it is, it is.

I don't mind, but it's just I'm curious that that sort of to be dealt

with by other experts already, if that makes sense.

Fiona Jump - Deputy Chief Finance Officer - 0:30:41

Yeah. No, and obviously the fact that you use, you know,

market -credible actuaries to come up with these numbers,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:30:47

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:30:49

We are able to play some level of reliance on but I think just to put it in perspective

We do need to make sure that the assumptions that are being applied are appropriate and they're so sensitive. So a

0.5 percent change in the discount rate would likely have a material impact and

Particularly because as you say you are in a surplus position in some ways it doesn't necessarily make it more important

But I guess what we are trying to do is make sure that there isn't a false position being presented

within the financial statements so

part of and an actuaries so

Boddington will use different assumptions to mercer's for example, so we do need to make sure that as an independent

Auditor we're able to provide some of our own

benchmarking and make sure that some of those assumptions

aren't perhaps a little too racy.

And I think to provide a bit more assurance

to this committee, what we will tend to do

is demonstrate where within our range those assumptions are.

So it also gives you the ability to say,

well, okay, KPMG have said it's within an acceptable range,

but we're up in the very optimistic range.

And is that then something you would want to challenge

your own actuaries on?

So I think it's the sensitivity of the assumptions

that mean it can lead to quite a significant change.

I'm happy with that.

Thank you.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:32:16

I think Dave wanted to add.

Thank you.

Just to follow on from Sarah's points as well,

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:32:20

is that the triennial evaluation determines the funding level

and the employer contribution rates for the next three years.

The annual evaluation that's done is on an accounting basis

and is slightly different to that, but also,

So I think to go back to Councillor Tett's point from earlier, given the volatility in

the economic position, nationally, internationally, in terms of kind of going through, the changes

that could happen within that three -year window could be quite significant.

So again, would need to be updated in terms of the disclosures for the accounts.

So there's an annual process which is on a slightly different basis and for a different

reason for the triennial basis in terms of for the for the funding position.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:33:04

Thank you. That's great. Councillor Stutchbury. Yeah thank you. It might be a

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:33:08

simplistic question or if you do think it's relevant please say. If you were

sitting outside this meeting and looking at the page 42 and you look at all them

graphs and charts of risk and assessment and statements like we'll come

and if there's any subject to change.

The reason I say that is I can't see anywhere in this

where you predict in present risk,

known risk and future risk.

The reason I say that, it allows you to quantify

where you might be.

We've heard good questions around the state,

what could happen in the world.

we've gone through a real shock which Martin Tech had to deal with, which was COVID. And we didn't

know that was coming. And so we've got future risks. We sort of know there's a risk out there.

We know that the world's quite uncertain. All those uncertainties could have a risk to the

council having to not plan, but be aware that we may have to plan for that because we didn't have

epidemic and it's quite a shock to everyone.

So will you be at least giving officers knowledge

of what your assessment is broadly

in the scope of the country and what the known risks,

future risks, and present risks?

Because I think that needs to be done

so officers can give right reports to cabinet members

and signal this stuff up.

Because we didn't see that one coming, did we, COVID?

and we didn't see the 2008 crash coming either, did we?

So I hope that there's some way you can communicate that.

I don't think it necessarily has to be in this report,

but I need to know that it's being communicated

to the European people within the council,

and I can't see it.

So I guess, again, just to reiterate,

we are, the audit risks that we've specifically

pulled out here are the risks that your financial statements

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:35:13

as at the 31st of March are not presented appropriately.

So it is looking at the financial position

up to that point.

We would also consider the going concern of the council.

So there would be factors that we would need to consider

around whether we think the council will be a going concern

for the 12 months from the date we sign.

However, within the public sector and particularly

for local authorities, there's a slightly different remit there

because effectively, as long as you are required

to deliver your statutory duties and you continue

to receive funding from government,

and it would be highly unlikely, even in a very shock position,

that you wouldn't be funded to deliver at least

your core statutory services.

And therefore, the way the guidance

is written for auditors and indeed for the Section 151

officer is that you assume the counsel is a going concern,

as long as it is continuing to deliver its statutory duties,

that's clearly written down.

So I think just a very specific point is,

the risks that we've identified here

are the risks that exist as at the 31st of March, 2026

for the financial position predating that.

I think there are other officers, particularly Russell,

within the local authority that would be more responsible

for looking at strategic risks, future risks.

Now having said that, we obviously

have a view across not only the local audit sector,

we audit many public sector organisations.

We have in -house economists, and I

attend presentations all of the time

on kind of economic geopolitical issues.

And through the meetings that we have with Dave, with Fiona,

I often speak with the chair.

We would make sure that obviously if there's anything

that we felt it was appropriate to feedback to the council

that we would do that through this remit,

but it's slightly different to the very specific audit risks

that we identify in this report.

I'm grateful you identified the statutory services

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:37:30

because all local authorities up and down the country

for a decade or more have struggled with

resourcing statutory services, I think that's no.

And that is a huge risk, we've got an ageing population

and we have a changing environment for young people.

It's not as it was when we, my generation,

went out to work.

So there are some risks there,

social, economic and employment risks.

So, and they will have bearing on this council

because they'll come to this local authority seeking assistance and help and you identify

what we've all known for a long time that funding those things is increasingly hard. So if you are

having conversations and pointing out the national trends and the variants I'm relieved but in the

Pacific to Bucks it's um every area's got its specific thing and there's a very gradually ageing

population in Bucks which is for the council's delivery of services is a

known growing risk and meeting that demand in what is a static financial

situation I think we could say for the best part of a decade so if you're doing

that please say you are and those people are knowing what you're seeing

and trends because we were not allowed to I don't think anyone in the council

could sum up the load of money overnight, put it like that.

Thank you, Councillor Stutchbury.

Dave, would you like to come in here, please?

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:39:00

Yeah, thank you, Chairman.

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:39:03

Just following up from Sarah's point, really,

is that the risks that are identified here

are primarily to do with the presentation and the approval

of the financial statements for the year, retrospectively.

So looking at the year ending the 31st of March,

in terms of considering those and the risks relating to those being a true and fair view

in terms of how they're presented.

I think the risk that you're talking about, Councillor Stutchbury, and what to do with

the financial standing of the Council going forwards and the things that could impact

on the financial standing of the Council going forwards, they're primarily considered as

we go through the MTFP process, which ultimately obviously resulted in the approval of the

budget at full council in February.

And they are considered and looked at in quite a lot of detail through budget scrutiny in

terms of the week where I know that you attend regularly in terms of coming to those sessions.

But I think in terms of the assurance piece, then external audit look at those and consider

them, as Sarah said, from the information that they have from external sources and triangulation.

They look at the arrangements that we have to manage those risks to see whether we're

considering everything in the round.

And then Russell considers how we're managing them internally and are we tracking them and

have we got the right arrangements in place to monitor and review those and report them

in terms of back to this committee and to Cabinet in terms of going forward.

So I think the assurance piece is there, but I think that what you're looking at is probably

something that's addressed more through the MTFB process.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:40:47

Councillor Powell. Thank you Chairman. I was just looking on

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:40:49

the costs and what you said just now Mr. Skinner has prompted me to ask that. So the costs

are reduced although there is one section yet to be annotated if that's the correct

term, which would make it about the same, no accounting for inflation, the costs are

going to be about the same, but there's a reduction in one. Is that to do with the

backlog that prior to my coming on this committee I was told by somebody, oh the

accounts are never complete, but I understand that's been an issue across

local authorities, you know, the whole sector.

So could you just explain why the costs have reduced

and are we in a strong position now

compliant with government requirements?

Thank you.

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:41:52

Yes, so there's a few reasons why the fees have reduced.

I think firstly to say the non -audit fees

aren't related to the audit of the financial statements.

And that's for other work that's done.

I think it's teachers pension and perhaps housing benefit,

which has reduced, which is slightly separate,

but KPMG, a different team, delivers that work

and therefore we're required to report that.

In terms of the fees for the audit,

there are expected to be some further

build back assurance fees,

but after the bulk of the work will be undertaken

and in this financial year,

and then we expect that build back assurance work

to be broadly complete.

So the council is in a very good place

in terms of building back assurance,

partly or mainly because management have managed

to produce quality sets of accounts for the years

that didn't receive an audit.

Our risk assessment has identified

that we can see the movements that have been made.

We know where to focus attention.

And a lot of that work has now already been undertaken

and therefore we're not expecting further increased fees

to build up.

Actually after this financial year's audit,

we're expecting those bill back fees to reduce

and potentially the audit fee overall to reduce,

which I don't normally say that,

but I think, you know, I would expect to see some reduction

given the efficiencies that we are seeing

and the quality of information that we receive.

If I may, Chairman, just the term build back

is addressing the previous year's accounts

that were not quite completed.

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:43:36

Yes, it is.

So effectively, we are getting to a point

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:43:40

that we're effectively auditing each year

that didn't have a clean audit opinion

to get us to a point that we will be able to deliver an unmodified opinion to the council.

So yes, that's why I've kind of described it as the business as usual audit, which is the normal audit procedures for FY26.

And then alongside that, we do our build back assurance work so that we can get to a point of removing that disclaimer from your opinion.

Thank you for explaining that so clearly.

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:44:19

Thank you. I believe that's all questions from members. Okay. Sarah, thank you very

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:44:21

much for coming along and presenting today. Are members content with the agreed plan?

Thank you very much. That moves us on to gender item five, which is the audit and governance

5 Audit and Governance Committee Annual Report to Council

Committee Annual Report to Council, which you will find starting on page 97 of your pack.

Are there any questions on this paper or any comments that members would like to add?

No? Okay then, so the committee is asked to comment on the draught prior to its onwards

submission to Council and to delegate to the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the

and the approval of the final version,

subject to comments made by this committee

to be presented to Council in July 26th.

Councillor Tep, you have a question?

Only my usual point,

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:45:15

which is if substantial modifications are made,

it will be useful for this committee to see sight of it

before it goes to Council,

so we can be wholeheartedly behind it.

I'm not expecting substantial modifications,

but I'm just putting that in,

in case anything substantial is made.

Yes, thank you, Councillor Tep.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:45:32

I am too, I'm not anticipating any substantial changes either.

So on that basis, our members are content to agree.

Thank you very much.

Okay, that moves us on to gender item six,

6 PMO Assurance Review Progress Report

which is the PMO Assurance Review Progress Report

on page 107 of your pack.

And I believe that's going to be led by Jo.

Thank you very much.

Jo Baschnonga - 0:45:59

Good morning to you.

So this report follows discussion at the January committee meeting

Around a recommendation that was made to defer a follow -up assurance review on the council's

corporate project management office or PMO

And at the time the committee was keen to understand the rationale for that better

And this is the purpose of this report to set that out in more detail

so the background to this there was an initial review of the

the PMO function shortly after it was first launched

in 2024.

And that was intended to be an early stage review

to see how the PMO was progressing

and whether the future plans were going to keep it on track

with the longer term ambition.

Overall the findings were positive,

it was making a tangible impact.

But there were some helpful points in there

around areas to focus on

through the next phase of development.

They're all listed specifically in the report.

There are six of them.

I won't go through each of them,

but the themes that come out are around

moving on from a compliance focus in the early stages

and a dominance of manual reporting,

in some cases complicated bureaucracy,

and moving forward towards more of the value -add components

that you would hope APMO would give back to an organisation

in its later stages of maturity,

so lifting the capability for change for the organisation,

driving strategic insight across the programme of change

and so on.

There was also something specific in there

about implementing a project management system,

which relates to my previous point,

and another theme in there around capacity,

which at that point in time was quite constrained by that focus on compliance and reporting.

And at that stage, there weren't the specialist skills in the team that you would hope for at a later stage

that would drive good grip and assurance,

and as I said, some of that more value -add activity that we were ambitious for.

So since that initial review happened, as is referenced in the report, there has been

a total change in leadership.

So we had the assistant chief executive started enrol last year.

I joined the service as major project service director in September last year, and we've

subsequently replaced the head of service.

We've made a permanent appointment there recently.

I think it's also important to note

that the council's overall transition has moved on.

So we have completed our first phase of integration

where we had a large structured programme

of change of service reviews

called the Better Buckinghamshire Programme.

That carried us through the first few years.

that has now closed and we have now entered

the early stages of the next phase

of developing a unitary authority,

which is typically where you optimise then

your ways of working and your operating model.

So we've begun on that journey.

And as we've transitioned from sort of integrating

to optimising, the requirements of the council

on the PMO have shifted.

So our stakeholders, as I've joined in my role

and discussed with them their needs moving forward,

that they have changed, obviously influenced by a number of external factors that affect

our service delivery and our risk profile.

So the rest of the paper then talks about how we intend to address the areas that were

identified in the assurance review.

We've got a number of components to that planned for this year.

That includes implementing a project management system,

which was one of the points

that the Assurance Review picked out.

We have already delivered a corporate change methodology.

We launched that last year,

and we continue to build on that now,

or we have plans to this year,

to develop a change academy.

So all of that creates what we're calling our change hub,

which maps onto one of the other points

that they asked us to focus on.

Beyond that, we are coming to the closing stages

of a service review in our improvement team,

which is where the PMO sits.

And that involves implementing a new structure,

which will go live on the 1st of July.

That new structure has a dedicated arm, if you like,

focused on assurance,

which includes some specialist skills and capacity

to drive the PMO,

but also to drive that value add piece as well,

lifting the change capability, driving that change academy

and change hub I've mentioned.

That works alongside the other side of the structure, which

provides delivery capacity.

And that's where you see, I think, the best value added

and delivered through a PMO is when

you have that hand -in -glove operating model of the PMO

alongside the delivery capacity, as we do in our new design.

We've also have in the offing a new design for our change governance framework.

At the moment that is the service improvement board.

That's been operating since shortly after the council launched in 2020.

It has obviously evolved since then, but we are moving to a new model where that will

become a more strategic board and we'll have a layer of improvement boards that sit underneath

that to drive the detailed grip.

Those improvement boards will be aligned to the corporate plan priorities and outcomes,

so it gives us a better golden thread between the corporate plan and our change delivery.

So that change in itself maps onto some of the themes that were arising from the last

assurance review and helps us to address those over the forthcoming year.

I'll pause there I think and of course happy to take any questions.

That's wonderful, thank you very much.

Okay, I have Councillor Rouse, then Tett, then Pohl, then Stutchbury and then Colle.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:52:40

Thank you Mr Chairman, I know that I'm very grateful for the report coming

because I know I was the one that raised this a few months back.

Cllr Simon Rouse - 0:52:50

And I think it's important just to restate why we are here

Because I don't think it is our responsibility as an audit and governance committee to determine

whether or not the progress that's been made is sufficient in terms of the capability,

whether it's a good structure and capability.

I think it's our job to understand the risks that have been flagged around PMO and whether

they're being addressed sufficiently.

And the reason we're here is that this was on an assurance plan, and it was, which I

assumed was because a view had been taken that the time

from the initial review to the date that had been originally

set was the right time scale to judge the progress,

and then it was sought to defer it.

And I've said this many a time, that the basis on which we

should be deferring order should always be only

in exceptional circumstances.

And so for me, the test here is, do exceptional circumstances

exist as a result of what we've now got in this report that

justified deferral of the assurance.

And I think where I'm struggling,

I think it's really helpful just to get the background.

But where I'm struggling is that, in essence, this almost

seems to prove the point, that deferral has happened

because progress initially wasn't

done at sufficient pace.

And therefore, what is required is more time for things

to be embedded so that people can be confident they'll

get a good assurance report.

That is, in essence, the thread that you get

when you come through this.

And that just for me is neither exceptional circumstances

nor acceptable circumstances to defer.

And I think where the report, and indeed the voiceover,

is a little inconsistent is on one hand,

we're being asked to note significant progress.

I'll come back to that in a second.

In which case, well, therefore, this

should be exactly the right time to test assurance.

And on the other hand, we're being

asked to say, well, we need a bit more time

to embed even further the change.

Well, how come that, therefore, can

be viewed as significant progress from an assurance

review that was originally done nearly two years ago.

So I think where I find myself is that this is an important,

this is not to single out the PMO,

because I think this is a broader point as well

as a specific point, is that I really cannot support further

deferral on the basis of what is here.

This feels to me like exactly the example of something

that should be subject to the assurance team having made

some recommendations nearly to, well,

by the time this would be done if we did defer nearly

three years ago to say is the progress that's being made,

has it been sufficient?

In terms of the further stages of embedding this progress,

here are some other areas that we should be looking at.

That feels to me like the right set of activities.

There's never a good time to do audits or assurance reviews

if you are the recipient of an audit or assurance review.

Because you always want more time,

because you always want to put forward

the best possible position.

It is really important that our audit team have teeth

and have independence.

And it's our job, I think, to support the need for them

to do that at the timescale that they originally say.

And so in terms of the recommendations,

firstly, I do just want to set out,

I don't feel it is our place to note significant progress.

Because I don't know whether it's significant or not.

I'm not able to judge from the paper

whether the start point and the end point

that we're at is significant or not.

I think we should note the progress,

because I think that's a factual statement.

But I don't think we should.

So I'd like to recommend we delete significance.

I just don't think that's the committee's,

don't think it's in our purview or capability to do that.

And then I'm afraid I just simply cannot support

the second recommendation.

I believe that the original timescale

for the assurance review should be progressed.

Thank you, Councillor Turner.

Do you want to respond?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you for those comments.

And I welcome the opportunity, I think,

Jo Baschnonga - 0:56:38

to clarify the basis on which deferrals are made,

because I don't think we have really had that discussion as yet.

So just to pick up on the point you were making about the reason for the deferral being to

get more work done and therefore have a better assurance outcome or report.

So that isn't actually what is behind that recommendation.

We've made that recommendation because we believe that we'll get the best value out

of the resources of the business assurance team

in telling us whether we have achieved the outcomes

that we set out to once the work that we've got in train

has been delivered.

So if we brought the assurance team in now,

which we could do, they could review our plans

and they could say, yes, this looks like it will map

onto the points that we raised last time.

But I think this paper already makes that connexion

between the points and the work that we have planned.

So actually the better value approach would be

to bring that assurance review to the end of the cycle

to test the impact and the outcomes

once it's been implemented.

So that was what was behind it.

But I appreciate you may just hold another view

and accept that.

So the significant progress,

I think I'm probably now regretting that wording

because really we're on the road to making significant progress.

I think that's the point this paper tries to make.

But we have plans to deliver this year.

We have lots in train.

We have agreement from the Service Improvement Board.

We've been through the governance steps.

But we have now to implement over summer.

But all of the, you know, apart from the change hub,

which I've already mentioned, has been delivered last year.

So that is where I think the value comes

in the assurance review at a later point

where we can then assess that.

Thank you.

Yeah, so just on the last point, I mean, I'm not,

Cllr Simon Rouse - 0:58:41

so my background has included running

major transformation programmes in the public sector,

major PMO offices, subject to NIO review, et cetera.

So I will hold a personal professional view

about whether or not the structure

and the progress is significant or not,

but I genuinely don't think it is our place

in this committee to make that determination.

So I'm trying not to get sucked into that debate.

From a broader perspective, though,

from an assurance review at the end of 2024,

to be sitting here in mid -2026 saying there is still

further work that we need to do, suggests to me

that progress hasn't been at the original pace expected,

subject to potentially because of some of the leadership

changes you've described.

And therefore, the assurance team originally

intended to do this in March.

the fact that they haven't and it's been deferred is for me should be a trigger for an assurance of you because part of what

insurance for you should be looking at is so why wasn't progress made between 24 and 25?

If one of the big lessons from that is the instability created from leadership change that is an important organisational lesson

that should be being factored in. My concern is that it leads to a broader behavioural response

which is when we don't and I'm not this is not comment on the PMO office specifically

but the organisation thinking that when it doesn't deliver things in the timescale expected and an assurance or audit review is coming,

it can use as a legitimate reason for deferral. We need more time. And I just think that embeds an organisational behaviour that is not helpful.

And so just going back to the point about the point you made at the beginning about this isn't about wanting more time.

That is exactly what the paper says.

The paper says at the very beginning

that we need more time to see the improvements deliver

the expected outcomes.

That should not be a basis for an assurance review.

An assurance review should be assessing,

is this delivering what it should be delivering?

Is it on a trajectory to get to where it needs to get to?

And if it's not on that trajectory,

what further steps should it need to take?

That is my experience of what audits, external review,

should always be doing.

They will never find the perfect moment in time

to assess outcomes.

They should be assessing the status of a service or project

wherever at its point in time and whether it

is on the trajectory to the expected outcomes.

So again, those for me.

And I'm trying to make this both a broader point, chairman,

as well as a specific point on PMO.

Because I think this is important for us to do.

And I know I've been very vocal on this for the years

I've been on the committee.

And delays in insurance and audit

should be exceptional circumstances only.

And I think we've got a very good test case here

to set some principles as a committee

about what we would expect.

Thank you, Councillor Rous.

We'll open up to some further member questionings

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:01:27

before we come around to make some decisions.

So I've got Councillor Tett next.

Yes, thank you.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:01:33

Similar to Councillor Rous,

I mean, in the demodistant past in private business,

I've run a similar team.

So I've got some insight into these sorts of things.

I was a bit concerned.

I'll just say this because Joe commented about,

you know, we're on the road to significant progress.

That's actually not what recommendation one says.

It actually says to note the significant progress

that's already been achieved.

So I think there's a slight contradiction there.

I'll be on the road to it, or have we already achieved it?

They're not quite the same thing.

And I think we need clarity on that,

if you don't mind me saying so.

I'm assuming the assurance review that was carried out

on December 24 was an internal one,

so had no external examination of it.

That's not necessarily a wrong thing, but it's just important clarity.

It was done internally.

I am concerned, and I don't wish to start treading into a lot of the detail, but when

you look through the progress against the findings of the review, virtually all of them

are amber.

They're either amber or amber green.

And to me, that doesn't speak to significant progress.

It depends where you start from, I guess, with a bright, glaring red.

but Amber to me isn't where you'd want to get to

and doesn't to me demonstrate significant progress.

And I would just risk treading on the areas

that Councillor Rauch says we shouldn't tread on.

But one of my own personal experiences

of running a similar team is the people and resourcing area

because for me, so much of this is actually

about having the right people and having that team in place,

having the right culture and having the acceptance

of this team by other parts of the organisation.

And I guess my question to you is have you got that team in place?

Because to me, it doesn't really feel like you have yet.

Because if you did, you wouldn't be rating it Amber.

And that just gives me cause for concern.

So I'm supporting Councillor Rous insofar as I don't think this demonstrates significant progress.

It may demonstrate that you're on the road to it.

I'm also concerned that so much of it is Amber.

You may wish to just comment on that or not.

And I'm also concerned about the people in the resourcing area,

just from personal experience.

Thank you for those questions.

So just to take the first one then in terms

of significant progress.

Jo Baschnonga - 1:03:56

So that reflects on the volume really of work and the steps

that we've taken over the last six months

to work collaboratively with our stakeholders

to understand the requirements of the council moving forward

and then to develop plans in the way that we have

across quite a significant number

of different blocks of work.

So we have the change governance,

we have the service review for the team itself,

which is, as you will know, a lengthy process,

takes at least nine months to complete.

We're near the end of that now,

so I would say that is significant progress.

and we are at the place we would want to be on the basis of where the new leadership team picked this up

in terms of delivering a project management system.

I think a lot of these questions are rooted in the period of time that passed between the review, the original review,

and then the change in leadership, which I completely understand that, and I do understand the points that you're making.

But things in large complex organisations do change,

and over that period of time, you might expect

in a fast -paced external environment,

influencing a fast -paced internal environment,

that when we are shaping corporate functions like this,

that involves several moving parts,

the governance, the team, the function itself,

the specific function, and meeting our customers' needs.

that actually an element of change should be expected

over that kind of period.

And what we have done is adjust to those changes

and ensure that what we're doing is delivering a function

that is going to meet the future requirements

of the council as they stand now,

which were not the same as the previous set

two or three years ago.

It's a little difficult for me to personally own

the history prior to stepping into my role

although I do appreciate that that is of relevance here,

so I'm trying to speak to it as best I can.

But I think, yeah, the significant progress

is in the planning, the service review.

We are on track to deliver some really big change

in this area this year, and to me,

that signifies significant progress,

although it will be still some time yet

before we can test the outcomes of all of that.

To answer your question about the team, we are in the process of selecting our team at

the moment.

We're coming to the end of the service review, so we've defined that structure.

We are filling the roles at the moment.

I'm confident with my professional understanding of what a good transformation team looks like,

that the structure is good and that the people we're appointing will give us the skills that

we need moving forward.

And that team is quite different to, and the skills

and the specialisms are quite different to the team

that existed before reflecting again on how the councils,

the council has moved on

and its requirements are now different for the future.

Thank you.

Councillor Tett, do you have any follow up?

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:07:13

I guess I just refer back to my comment about Amber.

I'm just, I guess in overview, I am concerned how much

of this still remains amber at this point in time.

And I take entirely what Joe said about, you know,

the world has changed and moved on,

goalposts have changed and so on.

I just think this team is so important to the council

that it is disappointing, quite frankly, that two to three years

after that review, you know, we're still at a stage

where so much of this, virtually all of it, quite frankly,

is still down as amber rather than green.

Thank you, Councillor Teich.

Councillor Teich, can I ask,

because Councillor Rouse has put a proposal

with regards to the recommendations.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:07:51

Are you content to agree to deferment

or do you wish for the committee to expediate?

I tend to agree with Councillor Rouse.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:08:00

First of all, I think the word significant

would need more proof than is actually given in the report.

And I think the keywords were on the road to, yeah,

which is fine.

I'm quite happy that it's on the road to,

but I don't think there's demonstrable

significant progress here.

I think there is merit in actually not deferring this further.

Let me just ask the question,

what is the downside of not deferring?

I mean, is there a significant risk

in terms of delivery of this team?

Why would you not have this happen now?

I'm gonna ask Russ.

So, fair enough.

I think we should just understand as members in the round the implications.

Russell Heppleston - 1:08:49

Thanks Councillor Tet, so hearing this discussion I was just reflecting as your Chief Auditor

now and custodian of your audit plan, firstly it's encouraging to hear the level of support

and rigour around decisions to defer agreed programmes on the audit plan.

the charter exists for that very reason,

that should I feel that I'm being pushed in a direction

that I'm not comfortable, that this committee

creates a position for fair challenge

and rigorous scrutiny.

On this particular one, I think a couple of things

come to mind, obviously I've only been in post

for a few weeks.

There's a second line assurance piece here for me

that's yet to be clear, as well as the third line.

So first off, I'm encouraged that we've

got a formal agreed programme and project in the plan

for the coming year.

But secondly, for me, as both Kristina's

the second line function, there's

an element around ongoing risk management here.

And you're right, major change to an organisation

doesn't stop risks from being alive,

doesn't stop issues from existing.

And recognising that there is significant work

or at least significant progress around how the project

is progressing from the risk management perspective.

There's a couple of things I think might be useful here.

One, that there is a focus on project and programme risk

in the risk management group.

So there is an element of scrutiny around how the risk

risks are being managed to the transformation programme

and the PMO, there could be an element of scrutiny

around that on the risk management group.

And secondly, I'd certainly welcome discussions

with Joe and the rest of the team around

how best we navigate sources of assurance

for this committee, either through a shorter piece of work

followed up by a more formal piece of work

or potentially discussion around, well, let's just bring it in now.

So, leave that one with me if you may.

I would definitely come back to committee on the risk, suppose if we don't do anything,

the risks that are being managed currently, and then how we provide independent assurance

for our internal audit function alongside that second line assurance.

Does that make sense?

Councillor Tep.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:11:32

If I may, I mean I'm always minded of a former officer who used to say to me one of the most

important things was, you know, does an organisation have pace and grip?

And this doesn't feel like a team that has had pace and grip over this time.

I haven't heard, if I'm honest with you, a clear answer to my question about what are

the risks of not deferring.

And therefore I minded the moment,

unless there is a really good reason

to support Councillor Rouse in terms of saying,

I think there is a rationale for having this looked at now,

rather than moved into the rather long grass

that potentially it might otherwise do.

If there is a good reason, I'm more than open to hearing it.

I have not heard it.

And therefore I do support Councillor Rouse.

Thank you, Councillor Tep. We'll move to Councillor Powell.

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:12:27

Thank you, Chairman. Unlike my two esteemed colleagues, I have not run a similar process in a public organisation.

Instead, I have run a business on a much, much smaller scale for the last 25 years,

and I guess many of these things happen in the back of my head without me even realising.

But I have a few questions.

First of all, I just wanted to say,

as we mentioned risk management group, I'd thought of that

and I just want to mention it so that anybody watching now

or later that we have very comprehensive reports assessing

risk and they give us a trajectory.

So for anybody reading this report, a member of the public,

would not see a trajectory.

They just see green, amber and amber green.

So that suggests things are progressing

or almost there where they need to be.

Yet we're being asked for a deferral.

So, Councillor Teck asked the question about

why the request to defer.

Is it because the resource needed to make those reports would detract from the work that's currently underway in improving the service?

So that was one question.

Yes, absolutely.

The second question is why no trajectory in this report so that anybody on the outside could see?

And, you know, consequently, a casual observer would not be able to see significant progress.

They'd just be taking the word of the report's authors for that.

And as we were discussing in the previous option, we're asked to look at a snapshot

as in an audit, but that snapshot isn't available.

they would like us to defer until perhaps more advantage time.

I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:14:38

So just to come back on the question that both Councillor Tett and Poll have asked

Jo Baschnonga - 1:14:44

around what's the risk of not doing the audit now, sorry, the follow -up assurance review.

So it is what Councillor Powell has talked about in terms of the resource requirement to deliver deliver it and how that will detract from

Then the plans that we have in place and the pace will be able to keep with those that that's

Thinking about it from the improvement side, but also from the business assurance side

It's how we deploy our business assurance

Resources that that was the other thing that was behind this recommendation and getting the best value out of that which from our perspective

and I understand that I'm hearing a different point of view

from the committee which I accept,

but from our perspective,

and this was from discussions with the business assurance team,

the better use of those resources would be later on

once we have some outcomes to test.

So, yeah, just to clarify that.

Councillor Powell.

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:15:43

Yeah, if I may, it would help me as a new member of this committee,

I feel that I've been here a year

and just getting my teeth into it.

If we could see a trajectory,

then I would understand what happened previously,

where we are now, and then I could say,

yes, I absolutely agree.

And of course, I do understand

that there is a resourcing issue,

but it would help me and anybody

from the outside looking in.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that, Councillor Paul.

I think when we conclude the questions on this, though,

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:16:15

we are going to have to make a decision today whether we agree to these recommendations or we

decide to progress forward so we will have to come to a conclusion. Thank you for that Councillor

Pohl. That leads me on to Councillor Stutchbury. Thank you, I can't plan to run anything for major

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:16:33

business work but I did have partial responsibility for under 20 dairy cows and

beef and pigs and try not to fall over on a farm so I've got the quantity of risk.

management, which probably was all my own, managing my data, the activities.

But my question being that if I was outside the air and looking in, it's quite detailed.

And I don't know, I went back from secondary school, I didn't go to academic school.

I don't know what PACE means.

And I mean the...

Speed, grip.

Grip.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Madam.

which is, I think, if you're going to put a report in,

it should be clearly understandable

for anyone reading it.

And acronyms are the death of a good way

of hiding all information, I believe.

But going back to why I'm really concerned

about the graph you've got, the proven four priorities.

You look at that net and anyone who's been fortunate enough

to be in local fire recognises those priorities.

The one where I think it needs the language needs to be more clear,

it has to be clear, is safe and supporting adults.

We know that adults and social care is a huge responsibility for the local authorities, one of the big two.

The Quotient chart at the bottom on page number here, but you can see when it comes to improvement

of board screen on education, much easier to understand in that what you're trying to

achieve.

It shows stately what you're trying to do, send improvements.

We know what that is.

I just find the descriptions in adult and social care unenlightening, a bit demur, and

need some radical explanation around what you're trying to achieve because commissioning

and projection, I could think of anything it could be, but I think the wording in those

to be open and clear and transparent should be a little bit more clear and a little bit

more and my comments are about clear wording, clear space because we are here

not for ourselves we're here for the people outside and if you look at that

you could not understand that and how can they hold us all to account or even

see that we're holding other people to account on their behalf and I think the

wording is not specific enough and that might be to do with that I'm dyslexic it

might be something else might the way I look at it but I can't see it and if I

can't see it I should ask.

Thank you Councillor Stutchbury for that.

Jo Baschnonga - 1:19:24

So this I think is just representative of the stage of development that we're at.

This is intended for an internal audience at the moment and it is representing our design

for our future change governance framework.

The blocks in green that you are referring to under the safe and supportive adults was

which is the example you gave,

those are simply the names of existing pieces

of major change work that we are saying would report

into that particular board.

So the next, or the phase that we are in now,

we are now designing that in detail,

and part of that will involve a more plain English version

of this for presenting to a wider audience.

So my apologies that it's not very clear at the moment.

I think the key take home message that we were trying

to get across with including this was to provide you

with some evidence of the progress that we're making.

So this is evidencing that we have agreed a new change

governance structure through the Service Improvement Board.

So we've taken the steps to do that and we've taken it

through the correct governance process,

which is one of the things I think the committee

were keen to to understand was the progress that we had made and so that

was the intention for including it but I do I take your point and we will make

sure we we rid our future reports of acronyms. You know if I could

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:21:01

indulge a little bit further one of the things we need to be able to do is

people who are on the Audit Committee because it knows me exactly follow

what's going on if you're enemy and you're the conversation. I've heard some very good points

about the report of being able to take that in. Maybe there needs to be a

dependence to where you can find those documents to actually look them up and

read them up because if the terminology says you're doing something it's hidden

within the detail of the wording and what I said about detail explanation if

get interested in something then you want to do a deep dive. It doesn't mean you're going to find

anything but you'll go and have a look and then you'll come back. That's what being that scrutiny

governance and whatever is all about. I couldn't do that from that and an outside member of this

council couldn't do that so members of the public really really would struggle and and I've I'm very

confident at the level of the members of this committee to be able to do deep dive and scrutiny

but that's great but we're not here we're here but the public need to be

able to interpret that and I think if we can move step towards that I think we'll

take everybody in in the council world with us and then we'll get the public's

engagement which is key. Thank you Councillor Stutchbury we'll make a

note of that point and we'll leave that to the new chair of the audit and

the governance committee, whoever is elected tomorrow.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:22:30

Councillor Stutchbury, can I just ask,

in terms of the, I think there is officer

and Councillor agreement that the word significant

should be removed from the recommendations at this point,

but to your view in terms of considering the agreement

to defer the audit, what is your view?

One or two word answer will be perfectly sufficient.

Agree. Agree to the deferment? A shortener. Agree to the deferment? I can't do it in the shortener.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:23:04

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:23:06

Okay, thank you. Just to clarify, you're agreeing to defer? Agree to defer. I'll try to be very brief.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:23:12

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:23:13

Thank you. Okay, Councillor Collingwood.

He did mean that, yeah. That's what he said. He said he wanted to agree to defer.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:23:21

I'd say contrivue, I'm afraid.

I like Councillor Rous.

The way the report reads is there are a number of failings clearly not being identified, clearly not actioned and not being delivered.

Interesting on section five, you have a next steps part, which clearly shows you have a closed consultation,

we'll give a new improvement capability and new structure.

You've already outlined what the new structure's gonna be,

because that's in the report.

And there's gonna be a new improvement governance

in summer 26.

Change Academy in summer 26.

Go live 12th August 26.

For me, I wanna do the actual assurance now,

to say, okay, we see that back in December 24 it was X.

This is where we are today, pre -August 26.

so that we're actually with new world, this is what new world is expected to be.

Does that make sense? So that's why I want the assurance done now and yes you

can have the evaluation piece in April 27 that says okay we now worked out what

the mess and all the rest of it was. We now have new structure, new T, because I assume

from what you're describing the new T in my appendix B because there's some in blue,

some in green, some in grey, so I don't quite know what they were three different

colours for, I don't know.

Assume means you've got some in post, some not in post,

don't know, but maybe you can enlighten me on that.

But for me, I disagree, I don't want a defer,

I want a assurance done now today, pre -August 26.

So you've got a short window,

if you had to refer back to us,

the risk management group,

and give us the detailed report behind that,

find that mined.

I'm not expecting you have to come back

to the full committee necessarily,

this chairman particularly wants us

to come back to committee.

But the point being is,

you then have a clear status of where we are today

and then what the expectation going forward is.

So the whole organisation gets clarity of,

this is the, yeah, new team in post,

this is new world, this is how it looks.

And then back in April of 27, we then do a review of it.

So I would say not to differ.

Thank you, Councillor Collin.

Councillor Sherbic.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:25:38

Cllr Alan Sherwell - 1:25:41

I don't say this very often, but I rather agree with Councillor Rous.

This is a major project and the decision to do this review was taken before I was on the

Council and at that time people thought that this was the right reporting timeline.

I accept that there could be circumstances in which it isn't the right reporting timeline,

But what I would expect to see if that was the case,

if it was supposed to be in March,

somebody coming to us at the previous meeting

and saying, we don't think this is the right reporting

timeline for these reasons, please

come here to further this reporting timeline.

And we could then sit down and discuss that.

What we don't want to be in a position,

and I don't believe for a moment that we will end up

in this position is somebody a year and a half down the line

saying, oh, it hasn't worked.

Now, I don't believe that's the case,

but then lots of people didn't believe

that was going to be the case with HS2.

And how far down the line are we going

to get before we can have a proper review on that

is anybody's guess.

So I think it is important that, I mean,

there's nothing political about this.

We all want the council to work.

And we need to be able to go back to colleagues and say,

the council is working in this respect and this crucial area.

And I appreciate what the officers are trying to say.

This isn't in any sense a criticism of the officers that

have come forward with this.

But I do think that the best way for us

to have the confidence that we need to have

and to know exactly where we are and to be

able to say yes the end product is going to be deferred by a few months more was

originally expected but this is why we understand it is the right thing to do

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:27:45

thank you Councillor Cheryl I see no more hands up now yes I was thank you

Councillor Ted that's exactly what I was going to suggest and so we'll go to a

vote on the to note to the significant progress I think that is now changed to

Do you simply note the progress?

Are members content to note the progress?

Thank you.

And then the second one is to agree to the deferment

of the follow -up assurance review.

Now, Councillor Rouse has proposed

that we don't agree with that.

So all those in favour of not agreeing to defer

and to proceed with the review now.

So, sorry, Leslie's looking at me.

That's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we will take this off line of colleagues

and then obviously report back to the thing.

So thank you very much members for that.

We now move on to the next agenda item,

some of which will be done in public session,

some of which will be done in confidential,

7 Contract Procedure Rules – Waivers & Breaches

which is on page 117 of your pack,

which is contract procedure rules, waivers, and breaches.

is I believe to be introduced by Councillor Carrington.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Cllr Robert Carington - 1:29:04

So as a reminder, this is a six monthly summary

of contract waivers and breaches reported across the council.

For members of the public watching, not watching,

the issuing of waivers is conducted

in line with the council's contract procedure rules

and ensures compliance with the Procurement Act 2023.

This, as mentioned, is six monthly,

so we'll cover Quarters 3 and 4 from the 25 -26 financial year, October to March.

On breaches, two breaches have been reported to the statutory officers in this period since

the last report.

Breach reports have been completed for all of these detailing the circumstances for the

breach and the resulting management actions and mitigation measures being taken.

I think as the chairman alluded to, this will be discussed, I think, in item 13.

On waivers, there are 12 waivers which can be found on page 120 to 122 of the report,

along with it's detailed as benefits, but in reality, it is the reasoning behind the

waivers.

and on pages 123 to 125, the three biggest

and their reasoning can be found.

Just before I finish, I want to bring attention to the fact

that in February this year,

a new contract management handbook

and toolkit was launched,

which helps unify how everything is done

and addresses the Procurement Act 2023 requirements,

which have been introduced in regard to public contracts.

And it adds a number of sort of measures

such as annual meetings between the team

and relevant contract managers

and highlights the awareness of waivers

and of the procurement pipelines.

I will hand over to Matt Everett

if he has anything further he wants to add on this.

Nothing to add at this stage, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, I'll now open the floor to members.

counts the Tet, then counts the Rouse.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:31:10

Thank you.

We're going to discuss the two breaches in confidential

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:31:14

sessions.

So my question is not into any specifics, just to be very

clear.

But given that we have a significant number of waivers

and two breaches, I'm just asking the cabinet member

whether he is confident that the processes we have in place

are robust and sufficient to handle the need for variations

in contract process.

and that breaches are very exceptional and easily identified in advance.

So I guess I'm questioning, is the process really fit for purpose given

that we do have the significant number of waivers, but in particular two breaches?

Thank you very much for the question, Councillor Tett.

Cllr Robert Carington - 1:32:01

And I'll take the breach one first.

Yes, we have two breaches, which I'm aware that hasn't happened for some time now.

But I mean, the important thing to note here, as it is mentioned, paragraph 8 .3, page 125

of the report, is that all breaches have to be reported to the Cabinet Office.

and they can then sort of determine they will make a ruling

on the proposed course of action, including lessons learned.

And I'm happy to inform you that we are not subjected

to any investigation by the Cabinet Office

in light of this report.

They are happy with the measures we have taken,

which I would indicate as support in our measures

in place and the procedures.

On the waivers, 12 is a big number, and it is a big financial number of the total value

there.

But I think, as you, obviously, as you'll review it, there are good reasons for all

of the waivers, mostly regarding timing.

And as I mentioned at the end of my introductory measure, there is the new handbook and new

processes in place which are tightening up the overall process and bringing

further education to officers over the use of waivers and when they should be

used. And I will stress again that cabinet members have had oversight of

all of these waivers and are fully aware and would need to sign them off as well.

Matt, is there anything further you want to add on that?

Yeah, I can just come in with a couple of points on that.

Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support - 1:33:50

So I think one point of note, and clearly we'll discuss it more in the confidential

session, is around the timing of when those breaches occurred.

So this was towards the tail end of the last calendar year.

So actually identifying those and being able to work through that process as the procurement

team, which has gone through a fairly significant change over the summer, is evidence that we're

then able to pick up these issues and act on them appropriately.

The bit that I would add to what Councillor Carrington said in terms of the breaches is we strengthened the process

around this as well to make sure that we report those breaches into the statutory officers group so the chief exec

monitoring officer and the section 151 officer all see them as part of that process and make sure that there is that oversight and any

lessons learned are acted on. On the waivers,

so 12 waivers in this period, Quarters 3 and 4, which has increased from 9 waivers in the previous

six months that we reported in.

Just for context in the previous year, it was 51 waivers overall. So the number of waivers has reduced as Councillor Carrington said

these waivers are used when there are benefits or when it's advantageous to the council to do that.

So, you know one example of that would be the Cherries nursing home where the provider handed back

the contract handed in notice and we needed to move very quickly

through that and the only way to

us to do that and ensure there was continuity of provision was to use a waiver process to

get a new provider in.

Sure, if I could just come back very briefly.

Cllr Martin Tett - 1:35:24

I'm actually less concerned about the waivers, if I'm absolutely honest with you, because

that is part of the process.

And I completely accept there will be circumstances from time to time when a waiver is required.

I completely understand that.

I'm more concerned with the breaches.

And I'm not sure I'm totally reassured on the process when I hear that they're reported

to the Cabinet Office after they've occurred, if I understand you correctly.

What I'm more concerned about is how do we avoid those breaches happening in the first

place and do we have a sufficient radar in place to understand that they may be about

to occur and therefore can be avoided.

So my question again on the process, is it now robust enough to avoid breaches rather

than simply reporting them post the incident.

So my answer to that would be that yes, we've improved the process.

We've improved that in terms of the service bedding in,

Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support - 1:36:18

engagement that we have with the service areas, the amount of data and the quality of the data

that we hold in the intent system, and through the engagement

that we have more broadly across those areas.

So that's enabling us to catch these things before they happen, make sure that we have

that visibility of the big contracts of the spend that's going through, what the end dates are,

and make sure there's appropriate planning around those.

So we absolutely are learning the lessons

from those breaches as well.

Thank you.

Councillor Rous.

Thank you, Chairman.

So to 293, just things I'm keen to explore.

Cllr Simon Rouse - 1:36:54

So I think Councillor Carrington sort of has

begun to answer this point.

But I'm not clear what good looks like.

So I can't work out from the waivers

whether the magnitude, which seems like a lot,

or would benchmark as a normal course of business level

of waiver in the complex service landscape and service

spending of an authority of our scale,

or whether it is out of kilter.

And I think just understanding the degree to which we are

operating with waivers at too high level of intensity

for what we should be doing, I think

it'd be good to just understand how we're going to get ourselves

to a place where we can sit and say,

this is something we should now be concerned about,

versus it's something that is just acceptable,

normal course of action.

Because when you look at the mix,

there are obviously some very low value waivers.

But they may, this will lead to my second point in a second,

may indicate a deeper structural issue

that the council needs to think about.

And then there are some very high value waivers

being deployed, which are because they

are services which have critical nature,

have vulnerable people aligned to them.

And I'll come back to that point as well.

So I guess my question is, how do we know what good looks like?

First question.

The second question is, it's very hard not to draw a conclusion,

particularly when you look at some of the continuation of service

decisions that we've had to deploy in adult social care

and in the children's area, that we may be lacking resilience

in our service and supplier landscape.

And again, my question is, where we're

having to step in with waivers because we haven't been able to,

also needs to happen where we just didn't have any other solution other than to do

this.

What steps did directorics take to look at what that means for

the resilience in the service landscape and

steps strategically to build a broader, more sustainable landscape.

And then the third's a bit more of a specific point.

On the, sorry, and Chairman, if I stray into,

I don't think I'm straying into the private sections,

so shout out to if I am.

Under the Children's Services Send Commissioning Waiver

under 4 .3, the ASL was due to expire on the 31st of June

due to the change in procurement legislations

was not straightforward procurement mechanism.

I'm struggling with that.

So the procurement legislation was not an unknown change.

It had been very well trailed.

It feels to me like in this instance,

and this is a high value waiver, we've

ended up almost falling into the need

to do it because we've got some vulnerable people

at the end of it, and that's understandable.

But I'm not sure I'm left convinced

as to why we couldn't have headed that one off.

Because to say that the change in procurement legislation

wasn't giving us straightforward procurement mechanisms just

doesn't strike me as a compelling reason.

So just get to understand a bit more about why was that?

What haven't we anticipated about the change

in procurement legislation that caused us to need to do that?

Thank you very much for those questions.

Cllr Robert Carington - 1:40:04

I will attempt to answer the first one and then on two

and three, because of the technical nature I will hand

to Matt, I mean what good looks like on waivers?

I mean in an ideal world, in a utopia where sort

there are no sort of current events and we're in complete control, good would

look like no waivers whatsoever. But waivers are a tool, they give us the

flexibility to adapt to certain situations as I said earlier, mainly

regarding to time. What we are working on and as I've already mentioned in regard to

the handbook and the processes in place is staff are being educated in regard to

with the new Procurement Act and new measures which have been taken in on their use.

Because I think in the past, there may have been times

where they may have been used more than they would have needed to be.

But we are now going through that.

And I think as Matt has already mentioned, that last year was at 51 waivers

and we are now substantially less than that.

We are heading in the right trajectory.

I'm to actually so I mean the answer to the question is a minimised amount of it

and we can always aim for that angle of one year saying no waivers whatsoever

but I mean obviously keeping a realistic view on it throughout and if you want to

come back on that also this might not be easy but is this an area where we could

Cllr Simon Rouse - 1:41:35

benchmark with peer councils I'm going to say yes but I'm going to look at Matt

just in case I say something wrong.

Cllr Robert Carington - 1:41:41

I assume we should be able to.

So we could do some informal benchmarking.

Councils don't generally publish the waivers

or the breaches, which makes it quite difficult in terms

of doing that horizon scanning.

But as Councillor Carrington has said,

our own benchmark in terms of the previous year

Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support - 1:41:58

and where we are now, we're considerably lower this year.

I think we've got around 890 contracts.

We spend about $600 million a year in trade spend.

And what we're talking about in the totality

is about 20 million through waivers and a small proportion.

So that's about 3 % of our spend, isn't it?

And a very small proportion of the overall number of contracts that we have

that we're then utilising waivers for.

If I come back on the other two questions then,

the question around the resilience in the supply landscape.

So using the example of the Cherry's residential home,

There were conversations that were ongoing for a number of months to try and manage that

situation slightly differently.

We have an annual fee uplift process that we utilise where we take a nuanced approach

in line with Care Act guidance as to how we manage those fees for care providers.

We had ongoing conversations through the year and a process around any exceptional fee uplifts

that may need to be in place.

That was a situation that we weren't able to resolve through those processes, which

ended up with an urgent need to get a new provider and to continue that provision.

And the question around children's, so that service, that approved supply list is in place.

The complexity around existing procurement legislation is around how the provisions are

selected from that supply list in terms of the unique needs of those children and the

parental choice element that can play into that, which is why that is the preferred approach

to continue with the approved supply list.

A longer period of time, then we'll

make sure that we go through the process correctly.

But that is signed off by legal and finance

in terms of the approach to utilise a waiver

to continue the existing provision.

And so I was not sure I quite follow

Cllr Simon Rouse - 1:43:52

why the change in the Procurement Act required that.

Because surely we were taking that decision at a moment

in time and the existing legislation.

I don't understand why that's being used

as the reason for the waiver.

So one of the changes to the Procurement Act

around that was the, they moved away

from the dynamic purchasing systems

that were in place previously.

So that coupled in with the fact

Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support - 1:44:19

around parental choice influenced

in those decisions was why we're taking the approach

that we have.

Okay, thank you very much.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:44:29

I have Councillor Collingwood then Councillor Stutchbury.

Following on Councillor Asse's point,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:44:36

I'm a bit staggered because although it's also a waiver

being for the children's services and or temporary

accommodation, it does talk about it being continuation

of utilisation of approved supplies.

It does talk about it being a continuation of existing suppliers, but it also says various

suppliers.

So actually, technically, it's a one waiver or 15 waivers or 20 waivers.

So you've been quite cute in some respects because you said it's a waiver, right?

Based on the value of it, it's provided so the children services provide three different

types of service for a start.

So it's got to be these three services minimum and or three providers and or whatever, right?

So, I guess you've improved your numbers down from last year,

but actually have you, because actually you've bonded in

a whole bunch of people there on the process

that you shouldn't have, that you should be fully aware of,

and should have done this and should not be on the way

of a process in the first place.

Because I'm easy on those two,

whether children's and or temporary accommodation,

they're existing providers.

And I'm sitting there going, are you kidding me?

I'm implying, but to the public outside,

they'll look at this and go,

and read the first two paragraphs in both those,

I was in four, I was in five, and go, what's going on?

So I'm,

displeased I think is a polite version,

annoyed is another version,

but don't try and play this in my thing,

because actually that to me says

there's clearly more than one waiver.

You might say different,

but I look at this as if I'm looking at it from the public,

and I go, various suppliers, multiple size contract,

because one's six million and one's seven million, right?

So 13 million pound of spend, right?

So it's not like 40 ,000 spend, right?

So I'm, I'm,

I don't mean to worry about waivers, but here, right?

So I'm like, I get the bit about the cherries, right?

I get that, you can't, that's what I would expect

as a waiver, right?

You've got something else, I do control,

that's what comes in, that's, you know, fair enough, right?

But the other two, I don't accept.

I'm sorry.

To me, I want Rismay and Google to look at that

and go, actually, what we do and why we do

and how we do it, because that is not,

should not have happened in my personal view.

And I've been in the council a long, long time.

And I'm sure, you know, the councillor says,

being the chief leader, he would have been very irritated,

I think, is best way to describe it.

I'll leave it at that, but I'm sorry.

I don't accept the explanation, sorry.

It's not acceptable.

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:47:22

If I just come back on that very briefly.

Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support - 1:47:25

So the reason why there's one waiver is that the waiver covers the procurement process.

So where we have a set of approved suppliers,

or where we have a dynamic purchasing vehicle or something like that in place,

where we have agreed providers who are on that list,

we have agreed prices, costs associated with those providers and response times.

The waiver covers our continued utilisation of that menu of providers effectively where we know that we've got

the right quality, we know that we can achieve value for money through those.

So the waiver is an overarching way that it covers that and then the transactional purchasing can happen within the confines of

what that waiver covers.

To my point, there needs to be a waiver. It's just BAU, business as usual.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:48:07

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:48:11

Councillor Roush, you wish to?

Sorry, I'm genuinely, so I was just

reminding myself when the Procurement Act came

Cllr Simon Rouse - 1:48:21

into force, which was the February of 25.

So I am genuinely struggling with why

we weren't procuring.

We hadn't commenced procurement.

Because we knew, by that stage, we

knew what the components of the new Procurement Act

were going to be.

You've had plenty of time to begin

a process for that period.

From memory in the legislation as well,

I think was a, I don't know the right technical phrases,

but there was a period to transition as well.

So just can you just tell me again into a bit more details

to why that was viewed as a reason why we had to have

a waiver in place rather than commence what should have been

a normal unrecognised, or it can be DPS,

but a normal reprecurement of that service?

I can't get the timings clear in my head.

Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support - 1:49:14

Okay, so just as a bit of context, and this may be something we discuss more in the confidential session when we're talking through the additional information associated with this report, and also the additional information about procurement paper.

Just to clarify, you're absolutely right, the Procurement Act was in effect from February 25.

The procurement team went through considerable change from that point on through to around October, November time before that team was really established.

And what we're seeing through particularly this report, because it covers Quarters 3 and 4,

is how the team have picked up some of the priorities and issues and challenges

that they needed to deal with post moving into their roles in that team.

Thank you, so that's a very different answer to what's in the paper.

Cllr Simon Rouse - 1:50:11

So I can understand that effectively, if you're saying to us that the waiver needed to be

ploughed to be employed because the team and the capacity in the team to run a reprecurement

during that overlapping period from the old procurement

to the new procurement act.

If that is not what the paper says,

the paper says the ASO was due to expound the 31st of June.

Due to the change in procurement legislation,

there was not a straightforward procurement mechanism

that aligned with the requirement

at the current time.

There was.

Unless I'm misunderstanding it, there

was a straightforward procurement mechanism

because we can now procure equivalents

of whatever the demand and purchase system is.

What you're saying is the team was not

in a position in that period of adjusting to the new procurement

Act to undertake a procurement. Does that make sense? I just think that's a very different answer.

Matt Everitt - Service Director for Business Intelligence and Community Support - 1:50:57

So I think it's a combination of the both the new team moving in, the new requirements of the Act,

and the time that we would need to conduct that procurement thoroughly and properly.

Sorry, so what was the lack of a straightforward procurement mechanism? What wasn't in place?

The lack of a straightforward procurement mechanism was in terms of the changes under

the act to remove the dynamic purchasing vehicle methodology.

It's been replaced.

I mean it has been replaced.

I can provide, can I, should I come back with some further information?

Because these questions getting quite technical in terms of the details around

individual procurements, which I've not got that information in front of me to be able to respond.

Cllr Simon Rouse - 1:51:44

Sorry, so Chairman, it's obviously not, that would be welcome.

I think I'm just trying to we're trying to sound the reasons for the waiver being put in place the rationale given was there wasn't

A straightforward procurement mechanism to enable us to move from a DPS

Supply system to a new one. I think there was but I think what we're understanding is

There was a more complex set of reasons behind we needed why we needed to go away

So I think just a fuller explanation would be helpful. Sorry to be I'm not trying to be pedantic

I think it's a really important point to just understand. No

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:52:14

I'm just going to elaborate because the reason we're both raising this is, is it systemic

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:52:20

or is it because circumstance? Does that make sense? So it's like these are the sort of

either storm that causes to have the waiver in the first place or is it because there's

fundamentally something within the organisation means that we're not ready to do procurements.

Does that make sense? So that's what I'm trying to get to is, if you can explain to us, okay,

because of ABCD that's because this is circumstance rather than because the way it reads is they

didn't get the right together and that's where the report reads is it didn't get

right together and it should have done and that's why that's why I think we're

coming. Thank you Councillor Conlon. I know Councillor Stutchbury has been waiting

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:52:50

for a while but Matt can I ask on behalf of the committee that this answer is

produced quite a rapid pace and not take too long that would be great thank you.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:53:03

Councillor Stutchbury. Yeah through you chair I'm presuming that pages which are

the report and the fiscal finances are in the public on page 7 to 11 because nobody's mentioned

the numerous amounts of the financial money I'm presuming through each other they are public

because they're printed nobody's mentioned that just conclude that question before I say what I'm

In the report where it says waivers which is page 7. Yeah I haven't got the paper copy I've just arrived today.

I didn't have a paper copy so beg with me. I presume they're public. That's fine that helps with the question I just wanted to cheque that before I proceeded.

listening to the discussion here and we're talking of seven million pounds in

sentence and we're talking of six million pounds in the Hope Growth

and Benefits team. We're also talking about two million pounds, roughly a bit,

quite about 16 million pounds in the disability and autism team.

Being as the figures are in the public domain, and we know that all those areas of the Council

are under immense strain, and I can empathise why these things may happen, because all those

areas of the Council, you can't leave someone on the streets.

You cannot not deal with a child who's got an education need, and the autism, it's unquantifiable.

Which leads me to the question, why are we moving into the confidential?

What are we going to learn in discussing it in the confidential, which I think was alluded

to at the start of the meeting, that we wouldn't learn normally in the public?

So what we're discussing predominantly in the confidential is the two breaches that

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:55:16

haven't occurred and the reports that are.

Okay, it's not the way, I apologise.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:55:23

I was just trying to follow it methodically and I couldn't see what the difference between

that and the other is so what I'm getting for you chair is that that's a

more serious matter so that's why that's going to be in confidential.

Breach is always discussed. Thank you I just want to understand that before I said

anything else because I always think it's better to seek advice. I can assure you I

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 1:55:46

follow you word -for -word council. I'm sure you if you follow me word -for -word

so that you'd be so enlightened, I'm sure, but thank you.

Thank you.

I believe that concludes members questions on this.

So the committee is asked to note the report

and the work of the strategic procurement team.

And then obviously with regards to the additional

explanatory note, which will follow at pace,

as I have been assured, our members content to agree.

Apologies.

Council can also the benchmarking.

Cllr Robert Carington - 1:56:18

And the benchmarking, yes, that has been agreed to.

Okay, thank you very much, that is agreed.

We now move on to the next agenda item,

8 Action Log

which is the action log on page 127 to 128.

Do members have any questions on the action log?

I always take papers as read,

so I don't see any hands going up,

so I deem that there are no questions.

I'm on the action log page,

Sorry, Agenda Item 9 is the Work Programme

9 Work Programme

on pages 129 to 136.

Do members have any questions on those?

Nope, okay, thank you.

That then moves us on to the Agenda Item 10,

which is date of the next meeting,

10 Date of the next meeting

which is obviously subject to approval

at tomorrow's Council Annual General Meeting,

but is scheduled to be held here

on the 21st of July at 10 a .m.

We then move on to agenda item 11,

which is exclusion of the public to resolve

11 Exclusion of the public

that under section 100A4 of the Local Government Act 1972,

the public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds

that it involves the likely disclosure

of exempt information as defined in the paragraph

indicated in part one of shift 12 of the act.

Our members can tend to agree.

Thank you.

For those of you watching our webcast,

thank you very much for joining us today.

And as chairman on behalf of all of you,

thank you very much for all of your hard work

in this first year of the Audit and Governance Committee.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Robert Carington

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Alex Collingwood

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Chris Poll

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Simon Rouse

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Alan Sherwell

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Robin Stuchbury

Independent

View profile

Cllr Martin Tett

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Matthew Walsh

Conservative

View profile

We welcome your comments in relation to the webcast.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Buckinghamshire Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Audit and Governance Committee - Tuesday 19 May 2026, 10:00am - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Audit and Governance CommitteeTuesday, 19th May 2026 at 10:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:00:00

1 Apologies

Leslie Ashton - Principal Committees and Governance Services Officer - 0:00:20

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:00:30

2 Declarations of interest

3 Minutes

4 External Audit Plans 2025/26 Buckinghamshire Council and Buckinghamshire Pension Fund

Cllr Robert Carington - 0:01:20

Sarah Brown - 0:02:07

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:02:18

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:08:48

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:08:54

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:09:22

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:10:10

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:10:22

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:10:56

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:11:08

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:11:34

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:12:22

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:12:34

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:13:03

Russell Heppleston - 0:13:13

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:14:23

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:15:23

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:16:53

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:17:41

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:18:55

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:18:59

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:20:08

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:21:38

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:22:03

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:23:05

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:23:09

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:24:10

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:24:18

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:24:24

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:24:37

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:24:46

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:24:57

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:26:38

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:29:17

Fiona Jump - Deputy Chief Finance Officer - 0:29:20

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:30:02

Fiona Jump - Deputy Chief Finance Officer - 0:30:41

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:30:47

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:30:49

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:32:16

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:32:20

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:33:04

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:33:08

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:35:13

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:37:30

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:39:00

David Skinner - Director of Finance and S151 Officer - 0:39:03

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:40:47

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:40:49

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:41:52

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:43:36

Sarah Brown - KPMG - 0:43:40

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:44:19

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:44:21

5 Audit and Governance Committee Annual Report to Council

Cllr Martin Tett - 0:45:15

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:45:32

6 PMO Assurance Review Progress Report

Jo Baschnonga - 0:45:59

Cllr Matthew Walsh - 0:52:40

Cllr Simon Rouse - 0:52:50

Audit and Governance Committee
Tuesday, 19th May 2026 at 10:00am