Issue - meetings

Committee is asked to consider:

1.    Whether the arrangements for the governance of the Improvement and Recovery Plan, including the role of the Audit Committee are sufficient;

2.    Progress made-to-date on Improvement and Recovery Plan actions and to note, subject to Corporate Policy and Resources Committee approval, the shift to tracking outcomes;

3.    The Recommendation for Improvement and Recovery Plan information coming to Audit Committee and suggest any changes or amendments to topics or frequency of meeting attendance.

The Committee received an update from Ruth Adams, Interim Programme Director, on the assurance work associated with the Improvement and Recovery Plan (IRP) following the Secretary of State’s Directions. She noted that the original IRP had been approved by Council in October?2025. Amendments subsequently agreed by the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee (CPRC), along with feedback from both the Audit Committee Chair and CPRC, had been incorporated as work progressed towards shaping the 2026/27 audit planning.

The Interim Programme Director confirmed that the activities referenced in sections?2.8–2.12 had now been completed. She advised, however, that the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) workstream had taken longer than expected, as the Council continued to receive updates on the development of the Future Surrey arrangements.

Internal Audit were reviewing the governance arrangements for the IRP, with fieldwork completed and findings due to be reported to the Committee through the standard audit process.

The Interim Programme Director outlined that the improvement and recovery process was structured around four phases: diagnose, recover, improve, and embed. The first plan focused on the diagnostic and recovery phases. CPRC had now directed a shift towards the “improve” and “embed” stages, requiring refreshed narrative, strengthened content, and a more detailed implementation plan incorporating SMART objectives and KPIs. Work was underway to baseline data and develop those KPIs. A communications strategy was also being prepared in response to feedback from officers and Members seeking greater consistency. A RACI framework would support clearer role and responsibility definitions.

The Committee were invited to comment on what further assurance they wished to receive to help shape the forward plan of assurance reporting.

Councillor Woodward expressed concern that a single Project Manager supporting all five workstreams represented a resource risk. The Interim Programme Director clarified that a core team was in place undertaking the detailed work, ensuring sufficient capacity and avoiding any single point of failure. The Interim Chief Executive added that discussions with Commissioners regarding additional resource for the LGR programme were ongoing.

In response to a question on the use of the term “scrutiny”, the Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that the Audit Committee’s role was to obtain assurance on the governance supporting delivery, while operational scrutiny rested with service committees which for the IRP was CPRC. Rob Winter reiterated that the Committee’s focus should remain on governance assurance rather than operational detail.

Councillor Neall queried the specific reference to strengthening Finance capacity, observing that other areas of the Council were also under pressure. The Interim Programme Director explained that financial capability had been identified as a key strand within the Directions and therefore featured prominently, alongside strengthening commercial functions.

The Interim Chief Executive advised that work continued with external auditors to build the required evidence base and improve assurance. The recent revision to the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) policy was expected to support improvements for the 2025/26 accounts.

Philip Briggs noted that under the new framework, risk owners would attend future meetings to provide assurance on their respective areas. He sought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13