Agenda and draft minutes

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To set out the Annual Governance Statement for the Council for 2025/26.

Councillor Iain Cottingham (Portfolio Holder: Finance and Resources) and Sarah Clarke (Executive Director – Resources) presented the Annual Governance Statement 2025/26 (Agenda Item 3).

It was noted that the report referred to the Governance Committee rather than the Audit and Risk Committee on page 25, and it was requested that this be updated.

Action: Change reference to Governance Committee to Audit and Risk Committee on page 25.

It was noted that Internal Audit had highlighted the risk that not all internal audit recommendations had been fully implemented. It was agreed that progress in implementing the recommendations should be regularly reviewed by the Committee going forward.

Action: Progress against internal audit recommendations to be reviewed as part of the quarterly internal audit update reports.

It was noted that External Audit had not identified any risk of significant weakness in the Council’s governance or arrangements for improving economy, efficiency or effectiveness due to procedures performed, and the Council had appropriate and effective processes in place.

Members asked how the Code of Local Governance was embedded in day-to-day decision making. The Committee was directed to Part 5 of the Governance Statement, which had been updated to reflect the creation of the Audit and Risk Committee, adoption of the Finance Improvement Plan (FIP), and establishment of the Finance Improvement Group and the GPAW Boards.

Officers were asked how measures in the FIP had led to improved resilience. It was noted that the Council’s financial position had improved due to the financial controls put in place. The Financial Review Panel had drilled down into the main drivers of cost. Service Directors were asked to present plans to bring costs in line with budgets. The Asset Optimisation Plan had helped to make the most of the Council’s assets. Also, the Transformation Programme was helping to improve efficiency. While the Council was not yet in a position of financial sustainability, there was a clear route towards achieving this.

A number of potential changes to the report were suggested:

·       Page 6 should refer to Resources and Place Scrutiny rather than Transformation and Place Scrutiny.

·       The report should refer to recommendations from the Policy Development Group (PDG) around the Transformation Programme.

·       Appendix A should refer to recommendations made by the Project Management Task and Finish Group, acknowledging the role of scrutiny.

·       The document should include hyperlinks so readers could access the scrutiny and PDG reports.

Action: Officers to make suggested changes to the report.

Concerns were expressed that scrutiny had looked at project management on three occasions, but without cross-referencing of documents there was a risk of failure to learn lessons. Officers cited significant improvements that had been made to project management within the Council but noted that the Service Lead who had delivered these changes had recently left, so there was a need to embed the changes in the organisation’s DNA to prevent slipping back.

It was acknowledged that implementation of scrutiny recommendations needed to be tracked.

Action: Officers and Members of the Executive to consider how scrutiny  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.