Agenda item

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 clarification on how the scope of Internal Audit’s review of IRP governance had been determined and whether Audit Committee members involved with IRP workstreams or sitting on the IRB could face conflicts of interest. The Interim Programme Director explained that such involvement was intended to provide real?time challenge and additional assurance and that the scope had been determined before her role began. The Interim Chief Executive emphasised that Senior Responsible Officers (SROs) remained accountable for delivery, with oversight from Commissioners, CPRC, and theme sub?boards. No conflicts had been identified to date. SIAP’s attendance at the March Audit Committee meeting would allow further discussion of the audit scope and governance findings. The Chair also noted that the Improvement and Recovery Board (IRB) was not a decision?making body.

Councillor Howkins queried the choice of lead councillors and why twin hatted Surrey County Council councillors had not been utilised. She also asked about the work on asset validation and figures previously considered at CPRC. The Interim Chief Executive confirmed that expert advisers had been appointed and that adherence to approved processes remained essential to maximise the likelihood of achieving the Plan’s targets.

Councillor Nichols sought clarity on the respective roles of the Audit Committee, lead Members, and Commissioners within the IRP governance structure. The Interim Chief Executive confirmed that work was underway to establish clear terms of reference and role definitions for the sub?boards.

Councillor Williams raised concerns about the clarity of the Audit Committee’s role in the governance of the IRB, the absence of measures in some areas, and the lack of reference to social value within regeneration work. He also noted that the measures presented did not capture all completed IRP activity.

The Interim Programme Director reiterated that the Audit Committee’s role was not to scrutinise the delivery process but to obtain assurance that the IRP was being implemented effectively. She confirmed that work would continue to clarify the Audit Committee’s role within the assurance framework and to define wider roles within the IRP programme. This would be taken forward as the first substantive topic for discussion at the March meeting.

The Committee resolved to note

1)    the arrangements for the governance of the IRP

2)    progress made to date on IRP actions and the shift to tracking outcomes

3)    the recommendation for IRP information coming to Audit Committee as amended to prioritise clarification on roles.

The meeting was adjourned at 8.55pm and restarted at 9pm.