Transcript

Okay, good morning, everybody. So, welcome to this meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee on the 20th of November, 2024. Please note that this meeting is a public meeting and is being live webcast. There's no fire drill planned, so if the alarm sounds, please use the exit outside the council chamber to go to the car park. Can I please ask committee members and anyone presenting to speak clearly and directly into their microphones? Please also ensure all mobiles are switched off or turned to silent. I would like to welcome, in particular, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, David Lewis of Cobham, and some of the officers from the Corporate Leadership Team, CLT, in attendance, in person and online. Thank you for joining us, particularly to respond to any questions regarding your directorate concerning item number eight, the Annual Governance Statement Half-Year Update. Okay, so moving on to item number one, apologies for absence and substitutions. Thank you, Chair. So, no apologies received, just that Ayesha Azad is absent at the moment. Okay, thank you very much. The minutes of the previous meeting, the 11th of September, 2024. Are we agreed that I can sign those minutes as an accurate set of records? I agree. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Declarations of interest. Does any member here have any declarations of interest related to any item on this agenda? No. Thank you very much. Item number four, questions and petitions. Member questions, we have none. Public questions, we have none. Petitions, the deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting. No petitions have been received. So, item number five, the recommendations tracker and work plan. So, here we are asked to review the committee's recommendations tracker and work plan. So, a few bits and pieces. So, action 8823, that's Simon, the audit manager of counter-fraud. I don't want to give us an update, please, Simon. Thank you. Yeah, I can give you an update on that. So, since the agenda went out, we received the final report that we were looking for from Unit 4 to allow us to do the analysis and pleased to confirm that there were no issues identified from that. So, what we're doing now is build that reporting into our proactive sweep that we undertake periodically so we can keep an eye on it going forward. But please say we can close that with no issues identified. Thanks very much indeed, Simon. Thank you. And just in terms of, for me, action A2024, so I'll respond to the chair of the Children's Families Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee, who's invited me to sit on a task group. And also, I'll draft a letter to CLT to invite officers to attend to provide an update on action A3024. Do I have any other comments or queries from members on the actions tracker and work plan? No? I can't see. Any officers have any comments or queries on the actions tracker? No? Thank you very much. So, the committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementations of actions recommendations from previous meetings in Annex A and note the work plan, Annex B, and any changes to it. Do I have your agreement for that? Thank you. Fine. Thank you very much. Okay. So, moving on to item number six. So, this is the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny Review of Council Governance Action Plan update. So, this provides a further update to members on the actions taken in response to the 2022 Centre for Governance and Scrutinies Review of Council Governance using their Governance Risk and Resilience Framework. I'm very happy to have Asmat presenting this, who's the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer. Over to you, Asmat. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And good morning, members and officers. So, you have before you a report just to conclude the previous action plan that was brought to the committee back in 2023. So, there were actions that did not seem to be closed off. So, part of the review of that plan was to ensure that we had closed them off. So, if I can just take members to page 26, you will see the final updates for the various headings. The first one being risk, and it is now part of the Audit and Governance Committee monthly reporting cycle. Sorry, not monthly reporting. So, it is part of the sixth cyclical cycle for Audit and Committee to receive the reports around risk. So, we can now close the action off. The second one was members and officers working together. There has been a substantial amount of work with work being delivered with the corporate leadership team and the extended leadership team. Officers have also worked with cabinet and political groups around how members and officers could work more collaboratively and collegiately together. So, we have recently, this year, undertook a workshop around leading in the political environment. And that was undertaken with the entire extended leadership team. Good news is that we have now devised an e-governance learning course for onboarding of new staff. And that hopefully will be launched in autumn 2024 and will touch upon the member and officer protocol. So, hopefully that action can be closed off. I just want to say actions that are closed off will always be reviewed and refreshed as a matter of good practice and good governance in any way. The next one was around the constitution and schema delegation. And that work has been concluded. But like all constitutions, it should be reviewed on an annual basis. So, the constitution is a live document per se. So, work, future work will be undertaken on the constitution as things change within the authority around the schema delegations and looking at good practices. Good news is that whistleblowing is now a standing item at this committee. And we have brought the report here and we will continue to bring that report. So, there is member oversight on the whistleblowing procedure and policy we have within Surrey. On the issue of scrutiny, there has been work being undertaken with the scrutiny committees and the executive scrutiny protocol has been developed and will be going through the council's internal governance process before it comes to members. And that will set out how the expectation that we would expect from cabinet to work more closely with scrutiny going forward. So, that's in progress and should soon be, hopefully, agreed and launched within Surrey. And then we have, lastly, member development. The Monday workshops continue with member development and they seem very, very successful. And I have to say, it's a very good area of good practice for local government. We have actually set up a members reference library has also been introduced and members should be able to access that reference library to obtain documents or any training that they may have missed. So, in conclusion, we feel that this now, and we would like it minuted, these actions, that this now concludes the action plan. But like any review of any committee or council's governance workings, it's always good to refresh it every couple of years. So, I'm just bringing this report here so we can conclude and finalise the action plan. That's all I want to say, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed, Asma. Do any members of the committee have any questions or comments at all? Helen. Thank you very much, Asma. That was very, it's a very good report. And what I was considering, I can see it, I look like a black blob on the screen because the sun's right behind me, so never mind. I was going to ask you, as I've been a backbencher now for a year, and previously that I was, I had a role in the cabinet and chair of the council and various other things. As a backbencher, it's quite hard to get to know officers. And when new staff come in, obviously there's no sort of signal that they've arrived. And I think, you know, as we go into the next term, next year we've got elections and we've got a new term, I think it would be, as well as the fact that we are actually seeing quite a few new staff coming through, those that are likely to meet with members or be relevant to members in their work, it would be good if some kind of, you know, flag could go up to say, I'm introducing today, you know, so-and-so who has joined us in this team and they will be responsible for this. I mean, we don't actually have a directory anymore of officers, obviously. We have the, you know, and we're advised to go through the councillors at service to contact me for every issue. But often I find I'm dealing with somebody I've never met, don't know, and didn't know that they'd arrived. And I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way. It would be good if we could, you know, in the future, absolutely this report has dealt with all the problems that we asked you to deal with. But this is something I think that we could work on in the future, perhaps. Thank you, Councillor, and that's a really good point. And it's something that we can address, hopefully in our comms, when new starters, you know, when everyone's important, but when those that work closely with members, when new starters come to the council, that we can ensure that the information is shared via, I think it's the members' communication we have, I think it's a newsletter you receive frequently, we can do something like that and make sure that a picture of them and who they are is included in that communication to all members, so all members are advised. Thank you. Thanks, Helen. Thanks. Stephen. Thank you, Chair. Firstly, this is most, most welcome. So, well done. It's a huge step in the right direction, I think, in scrutiny governance and the action plan, all of those items being followed up is great work. So, thank you very much for doing that one. My only question is, it follows along the lines of internal audit. When internal audit have a review, they have a follow-up, possibly a year later. I'm sure I'll get corrected by colleagues across the way there. It may well be, the question is, once all of these actions have been implemented and completed, can we ask for the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny to come back in? You're probably nodding, saying I knew you'd ask that one. But they came in in 2022, and I think that they do actually provide significant benefit to organisations. And can we ask if they come back in to effectively have a look again and to see if there's anything else that can be improved or commented on? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes. It's good governance to be reviewed externally, isn't it? And it's good governance to have fresh eyes on the way we work. So, the bottom line is, yes, I agree. So, the next question is, and you know what I'm going to ask is when, and if we can get a date when they can come back in, if we can get a note onto this committee to basically have sight of that as well, please. Through you, Chair. So, busy times ahead to manage expectations. If the committee is in agreement, can I say we can review that date after the elections? Have it as a date to be agreed with the committee after the elections? Thank you. Yeah, I think that's perfectly, you know, I was looking at basically the 2022 date when it's commissioned, and logically having that to come back in, say, three years' time, so sometime next year. And if we can, have a note to basically bring it back to all in governance after, for consideration after the elections, that would be fabulous. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. I just had one follow-up on when you were mentioning about the workshops that you had for CLT. I'm wondering whether we could have a workshop with CLT members and members of the audit committee for, say, for this committee, you know, because in terms of, I know, political motivations, it doesn't, I've never had that here in this audit committee ever. You know, we don't bring politics here at all. We just scrutinise what's available. But I'm wondering whether it would be a good idea for both of us to meet and we can see what maybe we could do better or officers could do better. I think that's a really good idea, Chair, and it's something I can take away and bring back a proposal back to the committee and speak to our chief exec and the corporate leadership team. Thank you. Thank you. And the other thing I understand is the LGA peer review next year, isn't it, I think? Yes, as I understand, date to be confirmed, but at some point next year, it's good. It's good practice for the LGA to undertake a peer review of authorities. I think it's on a five year cycle. So, yes, we are due one, but date to be confirmed. Wonderful. Thanks very much indeed. Do any other members of the committee have any other questions or queries at all on this item? No, I can't see any. So, what we are asked to do is note the continued progress made against the actions taken by officers in response to the 2022 Centre of Governance and Scrutiny Report as set out in Annex 1. Secondly, note that the actions, tasks, and ongoing monitoring of these areas are now integrated into the Council's business as usual activities. And thirdly, note the ongoing governance work will be undertaken by the Council using the Government's best value standards and interventional statutory guidance with oversight from the Audit and Governance Committee. Are we agreed? Thank you very much. So, moving on to item number seven. So, this is the six months complaint update report for 24-25. So, this report provides a summary and analysis of complaints received during the period 1st of April 2024 to 30th of September 2024. The report supports customer promise principles in listening to customer feedback and delivering excellent customer services. So, I think we've got several people presenting. I don't know who's going to lead on… Is that you, Eleanor? Sorry, I can't see your name from there. Thanks very much indeed. Thanks. Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, everyone. I am joined today by my colleague, Anita Pillai, who is the Senior Complaints Practice Lead and also colleagues from children's and lifelong learning. So, Steve Tanner and online Sam Reynolds. I'll take you through a summary of the key points in the report and then I'll go back to you, Chair. So, in terms of summary, there have been signs of improvement compared to the first six months of the previous financial year. We've seen a slight decrease in complaint volumes, around 6%. We have seen a large decrease in the number of LGSCO escalations and investigations regarding educational needs assessment complaints. The on-time response remains below the County Council's targets, but there has been quarter-on-quarter improvements in most areas and stages. So, in terms of reported improvement actions, which we discussed in September, as you may recall, remain on track for completion in March 25. And this report format has also been improved as part of our wider improvement action plan and includes some additional information requested by the committee in September where we've been able to do so. So, in terms of on-time performance, and this is paragraphs 8 to 17, you'll see that whilst those performance timescales under the tables in paragraph 7 are below target mostly, the quarter-on-quarter performance has shown some improvement. The Stage 1 corporate complaint performance isn't meeting the target, but Stage 2 is at 100% on-time. Children's Social Care, again, not meeting targets Stage 1 and 2, but are hitting 100% at Stage 3. And Adult Social Care and consistently achieving its 100% target, which is against the statutory KPI of six months. In terms of complaint themes, our top themes, and this is paragraphs 9 to 11. Highways, and this is around poor communication. Missed education and delays in annual reviews in the educational healthcare plans at the HCPs, although there has been reduced volumes in complaints compared to the same time last financial year. And poor communication relating to special educational needs services. In terms of LGSCO performance, currently we're holding steady on the Ombudsman complaint volumes and decisions compared to this time last year. Paragraphs 19 to 27 provide further detail on the Ombudsman's decisions in this first six-month period. And that includes upheld with no actions required from Surrey County Council, because we have already provided a suitable remedy. Upheld with further actions from the Council, and those two breakdowns are improvements to the reporting, which I mentioned earlier. Figure 5 provides a breakdown of the Ombudsman's decision. So, so far we've had 47 which have been upheld requiring additional action from Surrey County Council. Six that were upheld with no further actions required from us, because the remedies we had provided were already suitable. Three that were not upheld, and 50 that were closed after initial inquiries with no further action. Education remains the highest area of Ombudsman complaint still. Following on from the September 24 report, where it was anticipated, if you recall, that the LGSCO reduction wouldn't be seen until 25-26. I'm pleased to report that both the number and the proportion of those LGSCO investigations relating to delays in educational needs assessments have decreased in the first six months of 24-25. And that's resulted in a drop in the upheld investigations in that area from 64% in 2023 to 39% in 2024 for that first six-month period. Also requested by this committee, in paragraph 27, you'll see a breakdown of the LGSCO decisions relating to education complaints that were originally raised with the Council over different financial years. So, for, so far in 24-25 LGSCO decisions, 38 of those relate to complaints that were raised to Surrey County Council in 23-24, and the remaining six were raised in 24-25 with us. In terms of financial remedies, you'll find that in paragraphs 28-34, and there's further information on the financial remedies paid out over the first six months. As requested back in September, this has been broken down across the amounts that Surrey County Council chose to pay out before the escalation to the LGSCO, and then also the LGSCO mandated payouts. Figure 6 provides a breakdown of the total amount paid out for the six months, which was 239,000, just over 239,000 pounds. 153,000, 100,000 of that was from Surrey County Council, and just shy of 86 mandated by the LGSCO. And we've also included individual payment outliers as requested in September in paragraphs 33-34. In terms of learning and analysis, paragraphs 35-44 outline the analysis from Children's Families and Lifelong Learning Directorate, in particular education complaints. So communication remains a key complaint theme, with many referring to special educational needs communications. The report outlines actions underway to improve performance and customer experience in those areas. For example, the end-to-end review of the EHC process, the additional resource that's being embedded to train staff regarding complaints, and also a planned restructure in education. In paragraphs 45-48, there are outline improvement actions from Adults Wellbeing Health Partnership Directorate, and that's to increase complaints handling training and ensuring equality, diversity and inclusion is central to the complaints analysis, in order to increase the accessibility of the complaints process for complainants. The directorate is also raising awareness. The directorate is also raising awareness of complaints learning by sharing newly created reports with relevant internal assurance boards. And then on paragraphs 49-52, those outline improvements underway for all the corporate complaints minus education. So those actions are in to improve performance time, and those have resulted in the increase in quarter one and quarter two, which I referenced earlier. And the work is ongoing to improve that response quality and reduce escalations. So consequently, there's been a decrease in the number of complaints escalated to the Ombudsman for corporate complaints. And actions are underway to improve our stage one quality of response and avoid escalations to stage two. Improvements to the Council's website will shortly be undertaken to ensure that residents have access to the right information and the ability to raise issues, rather than submitting complaints, as they may feel that's the only recourse available to them. In terms of the improvement action update, which the committee asked for, Annex 3 of the report provides an update on those corporate improvement actions. And again, as I said, they are all currently on track for March 25. To go into those in a little bit more detail, the new internal monthly and quarterly reporting is now in place, providing a more consistent corporate oversight of complaints performance for the Council's leadership team. And that includes volume, response times, learning and resulting actions, improvement actions across statutory and non-statutory complaints. There are also improvements to public-facing reports that are also underway, for example, this one, but also for our annual report, which will be published next year. Since writing the report, improvements have been made to stabilise our current complaints IT system. And that's greatly improved the accessibility of data to inform our report and insight. And the other remaining outstanding issues are on track for resolution with the supplier by January 25. Requirements for a more effective future IT system have now been gathered, and the technical assessments are underway in terms of existing systems within the Council and external products to inform the investment business case and its recommendations. In addition, an improvement plan is being produced to inform a community of practice that's developed and implemented by an ether as our complaint senior practice lead across all three complaint management teams in the organisation. And lastly, the Annex also includes an update on the EHCP recovery plan presented to the Children's Family and Lifelong Learning Select Committee in September 24 and noting ongoing improvements in issuing the EHCP statutory timescales from 16% in September 23 to 64% in September 24. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Eleanor. Just before I open it up to members, although I could see a slight improvement in everything that you talk about here, it's still very, very small. And when, as committee, will we actually see where you can tell us, you know, the number of complaints has dropped by 50-60%, something major? Because I can't see it coming out of this report. Thank you. There are, as I described, a range of improvement actions that are underway. There's no one silver bullet to this. There are lots of improvements that we need to make in different areas and those all culminate into, ultimately, reduced complaints. We don't want complaints coming to us in the first place. That's the end goal. It wouldn't be realistic for me to say, by the time I present the annual report, we would have reduced complaints by 50%. In my experience, this would be something I would expect to take, I would have thought, 18 months or so, to be able to show a reduction in that. And, of course, you know, that is a whole council effort. And where we're looking at where we've got high volumes of complaints, there are work underway, particularly in education around those. And those pieces of work also have to come to fruition. So I think a more realistic timescale would probably be more around 18 months. Yeah, because the reason, sort of, I ask is, as per paragraph 39, communication is still a major source of complaints. And I think it's between 30% to 40% of complaints. Because we have the comms team here about a year and a half ago, and we did a deep dive in there. And back in, what, a year and a half, two years ago, complaint communication was still 30% of the complaints. So going back a year and a half, two years ago, it's still 30%. There's been no improvement in communication. So this is what slightly worries me in that, you know, if we say another 18 months, will communication still be a complaint? Because it certainly hasn't changed since a year and a half, two years ago. So I'm wondering what has happened in those, that year and a half, two years, where we are still sitting at 30% to 40% communication complaints. As that's specific to education, I'll pass on to Sam and Steve to answer those for me. Thank you, Chair. I think I can outline in some detail, if it would be helpful, the kind of measures that we are taking around communication. I think, contextually, it's probably important just to remind the committee that in terms of the numbers of children and young people with special educational needs, we're talking about 40,000 children with SEM support in Surrey and currently around 16,000 children and young people who have an education and healthcare plan. So the numbers are very large. So the complaints do, to some degree, need to be seen within that context. And whilst every single complaint is important and there's a story behind that complaint, the parents, the numbers are relatively small proportion. So in terms of what we are doing around communication in particular, there's probably a number of strands associated with the end-to-end review which I can unpick for you. The first is that we are looking at the kind of business process around all of the handoffs, looking at the whole process of an NEHC needs assessment right the way through to the review and looking at how we can make that process more efficient and effective to improve the timeliness and improve or to lessen the number of handoffs between different parts of the system so that people aren't being pushed from bullet to post and that they have a greater consistency of case officer that they're dealing with. So that should help with communication. We've also got a strand of work around recruitment and retention. There's been challenges within the service in recent times around both the recruitment and the retention of staff, which of course in itself adds to the lack of consistency of staffing. So a number of things have been done around staffing that will help. As part of the end-to-end review, we're also mapping out the customer journey. So we're trying to see it through the lens of parents, children, young people and schools to see what we can do to make that journey smoother, more effective and again better for parents. As part of the end-to-end review, we're also building in a revised quality assurance process to ensure that anything that happens around the EHC needs assessment process and annual reviews are checked before things go out to parents so that we kind of identify any problems or issues before parents actually see them or kind of are exposed to them. We're also looking at our structure, so how do we make the best use of the capacity and the resources that we have got to align them in such a way that we address the challenges and the difficulties that are coming out through communication. And part of that will be around looking at the right sizing of the teams to make sure we've got sufficient capacity in the teams. We're also exploring through the work that Liz Mills is doing the potential use of digital technology to help improve communications on those kind of relatively straightforward, easy to resolve matters, which will free up our case officers to concentrate and to work with parents who have got more complicated and more challenging issues that need to be resolved and where they need more regular contact. We're also doing and have done a lot of training of our staff around relational working, so working in a much more customer orientated way with our parents and our families. And we're also strengthening the information that's provided to parents through the local offer, which is the website that is the repository for all of the information around the EHC needs assessment process, annual reviews, and for parents of children with special educational needs. So there's a whole range of measures that we are taking to try and address the communication, but as you can probably surmise from what I've just described, a significant number of these things are going to take time to both implement and to embed. And I think probably it's important, and members will know this from their own interaction with their constituents, that we're talking about a situation which over a period of time there has been erosion of trust and confidence in the council. And so rebuilding that trust and confidence is going to take some time. And I think at the moment there can be a default position for some of our parents, understandably, where they push the kind of complaint sort of button before officers having had the chance to try and resolve matters with parents kind of upfront. So it's going to take time. There isn't a magic bullet, as Eleanor said, there isn't a quick fix. It's a range of things that we are doing to bring about change and improvement. And as I say, it will take some time. But as I started off saying, contextually we're talking about 56,000 children in Surrey with additional needs and disabilities. So the cohort children is very small, and every single complaint is important, but there are a relatively small proportion of the overall numbers. Thanks very much for that, because communication is quite a wide-ranging word. And just from personal experience, from constituents, even something like cutting down somebody's hedge, and it goes to stage one complaint, nothing happens after that, the constituent doesn't hear. So in very simple terms, constituents just want to be replied to, you know, by Surrey. And I'm just wondering, have we got the steps in post to do that? So if somebody raises because we've cut their hedge down or something like that, you know, they just want to be replied to and told, yeah, this goes to stage one complaint, stage two, without the councillor having to be involved in such a simple thing. It really is that simple. And that's what worries me, that, you know, two years ago, communication is 30%, and it's still 30% now. And I'm just wondering, how can we move that forward, just in really simple terms? So we have taken some measures within the learning spa, which is, if you like, the front door for lots of queries from parents and indeed from schools. And the response rate, and I haven't got the exact figures on the top of my head, but the response rate in terms of the timeliness of responding to telephone calls and to emails through the learning spa has gone up significantly in the last three months. And that is of a much better order than was previously the case. We know we've got some challenges around the responses by case officers in the local quadrant teams. And we are working as part of the end-to-end review to try and improve our telephony system and our email responses. And what we're also looking to do is to implement a system where we get instant feedback from parents around how well their call has been handled. So over the next six months or so, we will be able to provide some more granular detail to members of this committee around the overall satisfaction that parents are experiencing in their interactions with us. What members are seeing on this panel essentially is the unhappiness through complaints. What we're also wanting to try and measure is the satisfaction from parents where they are okay with and happy with what we're providing. So we can learn from that as well. So we're learning from poor experiences, but we're also learning from what's going well and reinforcing that and building that into our model and our learning moving forward. Thank you very much, but I think I've said enough. So Helen was first and Stephen and Stephen as well. Thank you very much, Chair. Did you say there were 56,000 children with special needs in Surrey? Is that what you said? There's 40,000 children who have special educational needs who have been identified in schools as such and we've got, in addition to that, there are 16,000 children with education and healthcare plans. Okay. So children are less in support in schools. It's just that you said it was quite a small cohort and I thought actually 56,000 children is quite a lot of children really. And I get, you know, I get that because like many of my colleagues, you know, when you speak to parents, the pressing the complaint button as a default position at the moment is where they think they have to be because they've heard on the grapevine and from others that unless you make a big fuss, you won't get any attention. And I think that's something that we really need to somehow turn around and address and hopefully that's that priority. And perhaps by measuring satisfaction, as you've suggested, we'll be able to counteract that. And, you know, I notice on the annexes, the two dashboards on Annex 1 and Annex 2 both include complements, not that there are very many of them. So I suppose the problem is that, you know, if a child has needs, then, you know, they are, they should be addressed. And that should be our sort of position, I think, as a council, we should do everything we can to address that. And not to further exasperate it by, you know, taking too long to do so or implying that unless you make a big fuss, nothing will be done. So I think that's where you've got to focus is actually that initial stage of being helpful, of being positive, accepting the issue rather than being defensive, you know, being more sort of, oh, of course, we'll help you if we can. Let's see what we can do rather than, you know, your child is going to have to wait a long time for any kind of assessment. Absolutely. And we are trying to do that. So two examples of that. One is there's been considerable investment and considerable focus on an early intervention and support strategy, which essentially is designed to try and help identify through and with schools children's needs and with parents' children's needs earlier, and be able to put in the support that may be required without the need to go down a kind of statutory assessment work route. And that is showing some signs of being successful. So in last year, there was a 5% reduction in the overall education and healthcare needs assessment requests. So, you know, we're taking that as a metric to indicate success in some of our early intervention work. And I think that is the key thing that we need to know as a governance currency on a regular basis is that trajectory and how it's being managed. Because we do understand that money and resources have been invested into this very difficult problem. And I think there's a lot of talk in government about these processes and we're not the only council that's suffering from this lack of communication issues, etc. I think as a committee, we should have a, every time we meet, we should know how that satisfaction is hopefully increasing rather than the, or if it's the other way and it's getting worse again. I just feel that's such an important part of our services at the moment that we should be told every time we meet where we are. What do you think, Chair? Would that be okay? Absolutely. And I just would like to draw members' attention to the fact that, you know, one of the major sources of complaints kind of last year was around EHC needs assessment timeliness. And we have improved on that. It's now gone from teens to nearly 70%, 60 to 70%. The complaints have dropped. We had an increasing number of complaints relating to annual reviews. Those have plateaued and they've started to come down as a consequence of the fact that our timeliness around annual reviews has improved. We know there's still a challenge in relation to provision and that does link back to making sure that provision is available in a timely way. We know that relates in part to the LGO, some of the LGO judgments as well. We are trying to address that through the capital program and additional provision. One of the challenges as members will be aware of in this area, both in Surrey and nationally, is the demand has gone through the roof. You know, less than five years ago, I think we had about 7,500 education and healthcare plans. Currently, we're just a few short of 16,000. So demand has increased enormously over the last kind of five years. And, you know, so we are playing catch up to some degree with a national phenomenon. Stephen, next. Thanks. Thank you, Chairman. I think, first of all, I would say that I acknowledge the efforts that are being made to improve the situation. I think we need to do that. I think that is important. But the fact remains that we are in a situation where the number of complaints received has not really changed for the last three years. And we have heard from all through that period that there have been attempts to improve the situation. But here we are. And on the information we have in the documentation, we're in no better position than we were three years ago. And I think that's a highly unsatisfactory situation, particularly since we've been told that the situation is unlikely to improve for another 18 months or two years, effectively, or to improve significantly. And not only that, Chairman, I mean, there are two aspects, aren't there? First of all, the fact that we're getting far more complaints than we should be getting as an authority. And secondly, that we're not really meeting the performance targets in a lot of areas to deal with those complaints. And they're just facts that we have to accept. So the question really is, as a committee, what can we do about it? Because we must have some responsibilities in this area. And how can we carry out our responsibilities as a committee rather than just be given information every six months or so that we can't take any action to deal with? I don't know the answer to that, Chairman, which is why I'm asking the question. But I do know there's an expectation outside of the Council that as an audit and governance committee, we must have some facility to be able to encourage the improvement of the situation and not just simply receive reports that really are not very encouraging, in fact, are somewhat despondent. Thank you very much, Stephen. And I'm wondering whether I add a paragraph in my letter CLT about this, that we are, as a committee, not happy with the performance so far. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Matthew. I was just going to add to that. When was the last time there was, like, an internal audit covering the complaints management or handling process? Because I feel like from the comment about, well, we're just, you know, complaints are a response to unhappiness as well. In actual fact, they're shining a light on operational inefficiency, control gaps, process gaps, et cetera. And we're doing a lot of tactical things about it, which is good, obviously. But from a process internal control point of view, does internal audit have any plans for that? And I realize I'm asking a question now when you're not ready for it. But I'm not trying to add things to your plan. But I'm just wondering whether it's something that's on there. Because I feel like surely it's something that's quite high in terms of its profile that you'd expect some level of review. Thank you. Thank you for that question. The last full audit of customer complaints we did would have been in about 2021. But we have done work specifically around children customer complaints management in 2023-4. I think hearing what the committee is saying, it's reasonable to assume it will be in our planning considerations for next year. Thank you. Okay. I think maybe that's the answer to Stephen's point, I think. Yeah. And I can certainly add it in my CLT letter as well. Stephen, you're next. Thanks, Chair. I was just going to pick up on your main point, communications, and giving residents easy and clear updates and access to their cases, and chasing down updates via email and phone calls is a lot of what I see as a divisional member get escalated to me. And I'm sure that's the same for many others as well. Given the area of comms has called out two years ago, and they're still being called out as an issue from Chair 30%, except from 30%, and it appears nothing has changed to move that dial. I appreciate that there's significant work that's been talked to, and as Matthew's mentioned, some tactical items in there as well. So the fundamental question is, do we know what the problem is in this area? Do we actually understand what the issue is? Have we done a root cause analysis on this? There's a lot of tactical suggestions being made. But fundamentally, how do we shift that dial? How do we move that to make a tangible improvement? And taking time to implement, you know, first be mentioned, and I know it does take time to basically make change and then to see the impact of those changes. But one could argue that communications was raised two years ago, and some items, I don't know what was put in place two years ago, but one could argue there were some changes put in place. And we should see those changes actually turning that dial and reducing that and improving it. And it's not, and we haven't. So there's still a big problem there. As Matthew's mentioned, internal audit is a good point to go and have a look at it. But then that'll take another year, et cetera, et cetera. So I'd just like to do a bit more of a, not to labour the point too much, but I am already, I guess. So what assurance can be given that the actions on communication issues are being actions? Do we understand what the problems are around them? And what actions can we actually make to get improvements? Because there's a lot of tactical stuff being talked about, which is on the face of it, which is good, we're going to do this, we're going to do that. But it's not making an improvement. Or it doesn't appear to be making an improvement. Thank you, Chair. Can I bring in Ms Mills as the strategic director for customer transformation and also the senior responsible owner for the customer transformation program, who can talk to that point? So it might be helpful just to set into context some of the wider work, just as a sort of request there to lift this narrative up. We have got a very wide program underway, which is starting to deliver benefit in this particular area. I can give a couple of tangible examples in relation to that, and we can, of course, explore more of that with the committee. But the customer program is intended to address these types of issues on a number of levels. So one of those is cultural, making sure that every staff member, so I think Chair U describes, you know, why is it we just don't respond when people are in contact? So making sure that we're underpinning the culture and behaviours within the organisation, that's as a whole council approach. And we're underpinning that with training measures and also the sort of performance management and reporting systems that will help us to do that. We're looking at this through a digital perspective. So thinking about that from our website and routes in, in order to be able to address issues and concerns. So this is also in a specialist area. So we might be thinking an example here, we'll be working with our colleagues in the education team to bring to life a portal which will enable parents from the beginning of April, May next year to be able to look at their individual record and understand much more about progress and what's happening. So much more transparency with families. But it is also to make sure that our website is fit for purpose, that we have customer, simple customer journeys through that website. And an example will be here of Fix My Street that we brought to life with colleagues in our highways team in September. And we have data and information from our customers telling us that this is a much simpler way of reporting the issues that they face. And also their experience in terms of the resolution is increasing. So some good feedback from that kind of introduction on the digital means. We've also explored and started to map every journey that a customer will take throughout our system as a council. There were well over 500 of those. Some of them are used, of course, much more frequently than others. And we're starting to draw that together with the satisfaction and complaint data so that we can see and prioritise the journeys that we want to look at first. And we will have examples here whereby in the beginning of September, where we have typically seen a very high volume of contacts for those starting the new school year. We saw a much greater resolution of issues first time and more quickly for families. And the data shows us that we were able to alleviate complaints that would have otherwise arisen through that route. And finally, we're looking at our contact centre. I might sort of give this as an example to be able to develop the work that they are doing. So that if you contact that contact centre, you are able to, in both first line and second line resolution, wherever possible, be able to have that addressed through the contact centre rather than waiting a very lengthy time to have that resolved somewhere else within the council. And so I think that the issue that was being drawn out by Eleanor at the start around the progress and the way in which we'll see this come through the data is that it's not a step change. It's not a switch that we can take that will see this just, you know, turn from one set of data to another. But with these fundamental shifts and the work that we're doing in these areas and by working together with the detailed services, and we've been exploring some of the ways in which that's happening, for example, in the additional needs area in this committee, we'll be able to make the progress. And that's where we are describing that 18 month window in order to be able to see the full effect. So it will be it will be important and significant but incremental change over that period, targeting in specific areas over the period of time. And then overall, we will see that change in the period. So understood that the committee will want to see that in evidence and we want to start to bring forward the information that supports that. But that's when we start to lift up the work that we're doing, we'll begin to, I think, help draw a different picture together in future. Okay, thank you very much, Liz. So just in terms of what you're saying about the customer program setting up a cultural, to look at culture, behavior, etc. Because, you know, going back two years, would that customer program not have been in place then? Because it seems, you know, you knew about the problem two years ago, and then now it's only being set up now when it's still 30%. I understand. So this is something which has been brought together this year. It went to Cabinet for approval for the investment in July, and we're now able to roll forward that investment into the work that's needed. That investment will go into, for example, some of the training of staff and the cultural programs, but it will also go into things like investment of the design of the journeys, the website itself and the platform. So the investment covers many areas, staff processes and systems. But the timeframe doesn't track back to that two year point, but it does and has come to life with the approval in July of that investment. Thank you, Liz. Steve. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Liz, for the run through of the customer transformation program, which did obviously go to Cabinet for many million pounds worth of investment to address several items across this organization. The question that we're trying to get to is the communications item that, as Chair has mentioned, was highlighted two years ago, and that dial hasn't changed. I mean, a fundamental question is, have we actually asked our residents what their communication problems are trying to get data out of this organization? And have we actually got anything in place to fix those items? I mean, I can go back to my residents who contacted me and ask them. That's easy. Really, really is. It's dead easy. And again, there's a whole slew of activities you've mentioned about the wide program, cultural, behavioral training. But it's a massive, massive piece of work. But we're looking at customer complaints here, and a fundamental item that Chair's been talking to is the communications aspect. And again, you know, if there's a way, if there is a problem with our residents getting communications from offices or from the organization, it's going to cause problems all the way down the line. And people just want to know what's going on. It's a novel concept, I'm sure. But the whole idea is, how do we actually get down to the bottom of figuring out what those key fundamental communication issues that our residents and parents are experiencing in this particular area, not just throughout the whole organization? And how do we turn that dial, how do we change that dial from 30% and reduce it and improve it? Agreed, the customer transformation program is kicking off. That's massive. It's a huge thing, and that's still very much in the scoping stage. But the fundamental question is, is 30% from two years ago? You know, if you wanted to, you could go into it and do a deep dive on. So it was highlighted two years ago. What was done from two years ago to where we are now? I don't really want to do that because that's water under the bridge. But the actions that were put in place, they've obviously not been effective, or they don't appear to have been effective. So how do we actually make that improvement in this specific area of communications, please? Liz? So I'm happy to come in on that if that's helpful, Chair. So yes, we are working together with our customers to understand the issues. We're using all of the data and information available to us. And some of our customers will, of course, tell us that they've been describing this for, you know, for a length of time. And so it's important for us to be able to not reinvent the wheel also, but to be able to act. I've given some tangible examples where the program is improving communications. It's improved the communication vastly, for example, with families at the beginning of term. And we can show that. And if it would be helpful, we can share that data with the committee to be able to evidence that. It's also the case that we took into account very much the experiences and the views of our customers when we were designing the processes, for example, around Fix My Street development. So whilst it feels like it's a long term program, there are tangible and real benefits coming on all the time. And we are being able to deepen our understanding. Absolutely. In terms of the principles that we're using, the voice of our customer is the first principle that we use to make sure that we understand the needs, but then move quickly to design an action in order to be able to improve those experiences. It's difficult to respond exactly to the issues around the communication that you describe. But if the committee wants us to undertake a piece of work where we can do that sort of tracking back and tracking forward, very happy to take that away. But what I can say is that we've put in place now a robust program, which is making a difference to communications for our customers in a number of ways. And we'll continue to do so as we roll out the work there in that area. I'm quite sure that colleagues in relation to the children's area, and I know Sam perhaps would want to come in here, might be able to expand in specific terms what's happening in that area if it's useful. Yes. I know Sam can be hanging on, so please do come in. Thanks. No worries at all. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Liz. Yes, within the Children's Directorate at a more granular level, we were reporting previously, and I think we reported to the Audit and Governance Committee on this on a monthly basis, to a working group around learning from complaints, a customer relations steering group. We transitioned that this year into reporting directly to the education leadership team, to the director and assistant directors. And we're now able to provide detailed analysis on the trends and themes, and also provide case studies on specific examples that highlight the types of complaints that parents are making and exactly what has happened at each stage. So we're transitioning that into a service improvement plan, which is going to be agreed over the next couple of weeks. And that looks at all of the stages that have been mentioned by Eleanor, by Liz, and by Steve. So starting at the very beginning as to why complaints are raised, but also when they are raised, how we can head them off at an early stage and really resolve those issues fully as early as possible. One of the biggest investments that happened recently, and this connects back to the internal audit that happened last year, was to invest more staff resourcing within the complaint function and also within SEND services. So the complaint leads were, once they got up to speed, starting to pick up the phone, speak to parents, understand what the concern is and how they can resolve it as soon as possible. Where it is being raised as a stage one complaint, we've also introduced a quality assurance framework so that the customer relations team can review in line with the customer promise whether all the points of the complaint have been responded to, whether a resolution has been agreed with clear time-bound actions as part of the response, whether the tone has been empathetic and understanding. And then the final stage beyond that is to follow up with services to make sure that those actions have been taken. This is one of the issues that has impacted on the escalation rate. Moving from stage one to stage two is where actions aren't followed up on and have been committed at stage one. And the work we're doing within children's department, so within the customer relations team there, is to work directly with team managers, with service managers and with the senior case managers and to make sure that there is accountability for the actions that are committed to at stage one. And so all of that will be put together into a service improvement plan, and there will be central governance and oversight of that through Eleanor and Liz Mills. The final thing I would say is that as we look back on performance over the last few years, since 2019, 2020, there's been a 30% to 40% increase in complaints over those years, until 2022 to 23, where we saw it starting to, it's 23 to 24, but we saw it starting to level off for the first time. And then this year, for the first six months of this year, we've seen a decrease for the first time in education services, in particular in the volume of complaints at stage one. And so I think this is indicative that, yes, there's clear, as Steve highlighted, there's a clear increase in the demand for additional needs and supports, and specifically for education, health and care plans. And that would naturally correlate in an increase in complaints around that theme as well. And this has now started to level off and for the first time this year, over the first six months, has started to decrease at stage one. And we should therefore begin to see a decrease at stage two and at LGSCO as well. Thank you very much indeed, Sam. Broom, Richard in. Thank you, Chair. When you go through your satisfaction surveys, can you please make a focus on the expectation that our communications give to our residents? The complaints I get is that the information up front when they hit the website or when they engage with us initially is insufficient for them to understand what the processes are and how they're going to relate to them. I know that a lot of work is done in industry using chatbots. And I think that could be a useful direction for us to go in because they do answer the various questions that go off in tangents as to what an expectation might be. So can I please ask that you focus on dealing with the expectation at the first point of communication in the hope that that will see off the complaints that are coming to fruition? Thank you. Did you want to respond, Sam, or Liz? Yes. Yes. So I know Liz Mills will probably speak to the exploration at the moment of AI and automation and chatbots. I think specifically within education, it's also important to note that we've just recently, in the summer, appointed within Steve Service a restorative practice service manager. And part of their responsibility is to embed the cultural aspects of it. Because I think whenever we're thinking about chatbots, it will hit off some of those initial questions and manage expectations. But we need to make sure we don't also lose that personal touch that families and parents are looking for through their journey. One other point to make to a previous comment was around engagement with families and mapping out a customer journey and understanding their expectations of communication. I've been supporting the mapping of customer journeys. And I think we're often missing the early points for engagement with customers before they request an EHCP. And I've highlighted that in my customer journey map, which I've just submitted this week. And that will inform the work that we do in collaboration with Steve Services to improve the communication at early stage, set expectations of what to expect at each stage, understanding a clear timeline and expectations of the role of a case officer as well, which has been a topic discussed here in this committee and by Family Voice Surrey over a period of time too. So we're managing expectations upfront and then making sure we don't lose that personal touch through appointing a service manager for restorative practice. But I'll answer Liz Mills, who would like to comment more on the chatbots specifically. Yes, absolutely. So we have been trialling the use of chatbots. They are effective. And we've been looking at industry and other local authorities to be able to see how we can best utilise and sort of harness that type of technology. That will absolutely be coupled together with further automation, self-service. So it's simpler for people, more people to do things themselves first time where it is the case that that's the way in which they want to transact the business. We also understand that for inclusion and for accessibility needs, it is also the case that you may need to have your needs met by the support of someone either on the phone or in person. And our model takes account of that, too, so that we can provide those opportunities. But the technology is something which we have not maximised yet. And we we absolutely have in the plan to do so. This also I could give an example here where we are linking this to our website review. That does tell us that we typically provide the wrong balance of information. Often it's too complex. There's too much. It's difficult to understand what is actually needed. So we're working through the content of the website, not just the way that the website operates to make that easier. An example here would be in our blue badge domain where we've been focusing on some work here. And we can already see improvements to journey times and customer experience in some of the ways in which we're starting to sort of think differently about the way in which we need to meet those needs. Thank you very much, Liz. Chair, can I just come back on a couple of earlier points? One was around the comment that complaints haven't improved or the numbers of complaints haven't improved. I just want to put those into context. In 2021, we had 12,000 EHCPs. Currently, as we speak today, it's 16,000. So that is a one third, 33% or around that amount increase. We have not experienced a third increase in complaints. Complaints have come down. So within the context of the volume of work that we're dealing with and the demand for EHCPs, complaints are going down. And it's really important that we stress that point. The second thing that I would want to emphasize, and I do this from the context of being absolutely empathetic from where our parents and our customers are coming from. But the local authorities' statutory duties in relation to education and healthcare plans have five or six key elements to it. First of all, the receipt of an application or request to assess. The second communication point is the decision by the local authority to assess, which we have to make within six weeks. The decision to issue a plan or not, which we have to make within 16 weeks. The issuing of the plan and then making sure the provision is in place and then reviewing that plan after 12 months. Those are our statutory duties and those are our key decision making and communication points. What often happens is that parents will communicate through email from personal experience and from experience of case officers. They will sometimes get 15 emails within the matter of days from one parent who is very upset or anxious about what's happening. And it's that volume that makes it really, really difficult for our case officers to kind of deal with in a timely way. So there is something about how we kind of manage expectations and how we do some of the things that Liz has described around the use of chat box and the use of other technology to help parents access the information that they require quickly. More generally around the system, but specifically in relation to their case. And I think there are some really important things that we can do there. But we do have to remember what our statutory duties are. And there is something about us needing to manage the expectations of some parents when the demands on case officers are excessive and disproportionate. Anybody else? Any other comments from... Go on, Stephen. Sorry, Chair. Thank you. A couple of comments on the earlier comments. So deep in our understanding was an item mentioned from two years ago. So the question still is, do we not know where the problems are in our communications area? There were references made about the children's directorate. And the several items have been talked about detailed analysis on trends and themes, service improvement plans, looking at all stages, blah, et cetera, et cetera. And so the fundamental piece of that is that that will be put into a service improvement plan, which is great. It's good to hear. So in a follow-up question off the back of that is, when will that be ready? And what will it actually... What will happen once it's executed and what are the expectations around that improvement? So, you know, we're talking about items, addressing problems, and looking at issues now, coming up with improvement plans, which is great. But we're talking, from the Chair's point of view, we're talking about two years ago. So a question, Chair, is, I didn't want to go there, but can we have a look at what the actions were around this particular point from two years ago and see what was actually proposed then and determine what was asked for, what was done to better inform the committee, please? And the other piece we've just heard about is you're talking about parents sending in 15 emails a day or whatever. There are various solutions out there. I'm not going to get into solutionizing, but there are various solutions out there, self-service CRM portals that are available where you can give them access to a portal where you can see all of the actions there, and you don't have to deal with that email traffic. It's all there. There are various organizations that do this. It's not rocket science. It's been done elsewhere. So surely we must be looking at stuff like that. So, Mr. Chair, can we have a look at what was asked for two years ago? And then I'll stop butchering on about this particular one. Thank you. Yes, I agree completely. Helen, then Stephen. Yes, I am concerned about, I mean, I think, you know, what you've said, Steve, about just that point that you've just made there about 15 emails. You know, it feels as though, you know, I can relate to what you're saying, but why would they do that in the first place? And it's because, as Steve says, I think there isn't the information that they need available to them. So, in a way, as well, that they understand. So, there's several things. And that's, you know, it's not just a question of, you know, providing an AI or having to deal with it. It's making sure that we can have that stuff on the website or information available or someone to actually talk to that can go through it so they don't have that rash of emails issues. So, that's the thing that needs to be addressed, really, apart from the stress that it puts everyone under, not just the parents who are under huge stress when they discover their child needs some help, but also the social worker as well, and all the people in the team, so you have to do the assessment. It just feels we need to be much better informing people and how we inform them. You know, what kind of tools do we use to make sure they can access the information they need? It may not be just reading things on a website. It might be a lot more than that. Okay, and Stephen. Yeah, just a brief comment, Chairman. And I came back to the question I raised right at the beginning, which is, what are the responsibilities of this committee with regard to the issues that we've been discussing? I mean, we can certainly ask for a report on information and what's happening and what has happened. And we can ask for reports of that. We can ask for reports on why performance is as low as it is, why only 54% of Stage 1 non-statutary applications are dealt with in the timeframe that they should be dealt with in. And that we can do, but is there anything more that we can do, that we can do? Do we have responsibility for doing anything more as an Auditant Governance Committee as against the responsibilities that the Scrutiny Committee has, for example? That's a very good question, Stephen. I wonder, as Matt, I don't know whether you can comment on exactly what further action we as an Auditant Governance Committee can take. Sorry, Chair, I'm just thinking of how, in particular, to respond to the question and what action. So you can ask for a more detailed report, but you don't want to, at the same time, keep repeating things over and over again and somehow draw a conclusion and maybe look at how we can... I'm being very ambiguous here. I see that Councillor McCormick wants to come in. I'm sure he has a view, too. Because we're not a Scrutiny Committee. No, you're not. We're an Auditant Governance Committee. We're an Auditant Governance Committee. It's the role of that Scrutiny Committee to take further action. So, Stephen, any... Thanks, Chair. I mean, a suggestion might well be that this committee writes to those select committees and basically highlights the concerns and possibly writes to Cabinet as well. Because that's most of the decision-making bodies in this Council. And you're right, it should fall to the select committees and to those areas. And if we, you know, from an Auditant Governance point of view, from our terms of reference, then we should draw out from there that there are concerns in particular areas. And we'd just like to highlight these particular items and would suggest you do what you want with them. But, you know, we've highlighted these particular items and we write to various select committees and highlight the issues to Cabinet as well. Would that work? I think that... I think that would be a good solution, thank you. Yeah. If the Chair agrees on the committee. Do the rest of the committee agree? Yeah. Yeah. Thanks very soon. Thank you. Any other comments or points on this? Yes. I don't even know. Did you want... No? No? No. Okay. Okay, fine. So... Oh, Liz just had her hand up. I don't know if she wants to come back. Sorry. Oh, Liz, did you have your hand up? Okay. I did. I just wanted... It was a point of response and clarity really. So Councillor McCormick described a portal for parents just to confirm that that portal for parents is coming online. It is in development. It's being tested with parents at the moment. And so that is coming online in April next year at the latest. So we'll be able to report the impact of that to the committee as we go further. And I think it's just evidence of, you know, we're not at a standing start. We are making continuous improvement. We absolutely understand the imperative to be able to move forward more quickly and to be able to make the difference as customers. And we will bring that forward to the committees and back to this committee as requested. But just to bring that point forward in terms of the developments underway already. Thank you very much, Liz. David, do you want to comment? Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just firstly to say that, you know, I'll pass on your concerns to Cabinet. So, you know, it's part of the reason why I attend these meetings, so that I can be a conduit between this committee and the Cabinet. So I'll certainly pass on the concerns. But secondly, you know, I just wanted to say, I mean, I understand your concerns and share the concerns. I mean, I think we've heard quite a lot, particularly from Liz and the team, about the plans that are in place. And, you know, and I think also we've heard about trying to put the data into some sort of perspective. What I haven't heard from the committee is any sort of, I mean, we've got to be constructive in this. And it's one thing expressing concern. But I haven't actually heard any alternative suggestions in terms of what could perhaps be done to improve the situation over and above the programmes and the plans, the transformation work, the work that's going on within customer service and so on, that's already underway. And I think what would be helpful, rather than simply saying we're not satisfied, is to actually say, well, I think there's some other areas where, in fact, you know, this could be done or that could be done. And I haven't heard that this morning in terms of any suggestions. You know, there is an awful lot of work taking place. And I think we have to be supportive of that. If there's anything that's missing, you know, bring that out and we'll certainly take that away and look at it. But I haven't heard that so far. Yeah. Okay. What we intend to do is, I think, as we said, we'll write to select committees, because I think our main focus is the fact that it's just a lack of progress. You know, I've been on this order committee for four years now almost. It's just a lack of progress in this specific area, especially as we did a deep dive into comms a couple of years ago. And it's very difficult for us to sort of say, yeah, you should do this, you should do that, because we're not operationally involved in any of this. So I think that's where our problem is. So all we can see is what's on the papers here and what's failing. There's very little positive in this report. Very few positives. There has been progress in certain areas. You know, I mean, if you take, for example, home to school transport, you know, which I chair the oversight group for that. You know, if you look at the situation two years ago in terms of the number of complaints that were coming through in terms of the home to school transport situation, and you compare that with the number of complaints that are coming through today, if you also look at the timeliness of dealing with the complaints that come through, I mean, it's chalk and cheese. There's been a huge improvement in that area. You know, and I think most members would recognise that. You know, two years ago, we all had our inboxes full of complaints about the home to school transport process. Today, those emails are noticeable by their absence. You know, that is one area, as an example, where there has been real progress. So I think, you know, it's important that we recognise that, you know, it's not all negative, that there has been some real improvements in certain areas. That's not to say there's not other areas where we can work on and the plans are there, but, you know, that's got the whole thing into some sort of proportion. Helen, do you want to see? I hear what David has said, and as a council of members, we've seen this over the last year, but, you know, really, it's the question that we should put to officers. Do you feel confident that this transformation programme is going to see the improvements that we all want? And I think if we feel that it's slightly negative at the moment, it's because we don't particularly feel that confidence yet. And maybe that's something that officers could reflect back. Liz perhaps might reflect back on and say, you know, that confidence is there. If it is, that this will work, this new transformation programme. I think it's just us reflecting on the report, isn't it? I'm happy to reflect on that if that's, you know, welcome chair. I am confident that this will make a difference, but I'm also confident that the processes will be in place for us to be able to adjust the course if need be. I think it's probably for us to think about how we might more fully reflect back to the areas where we are making a difference. I'm very much thinking about this in relation, for example, to the connection into the communications issue and the deep dive. And I wonder whether we have presented the information in quite a linear way in relation to the sort of statistics around complaints without sort of setting that into a context. And giving evidenced examples of difference to our residents, to our customers of improvement and areas for further development. So there is much more to do. We know that. But we have also been able to see through the investments today, through the work in the targeted areas, real tangible difference and traction that is making improvement in significant ways. So I'm confident, but I also, you know, welcome that we keep the progress under review, honest and open and adjust where we need to and provide the committee with a perhaps more rounded picture of that as we get forward. Yeah, thank you. I do agree with that. Yeah, more detail. Yeah, it seems like there's a lot of tactical work that's went on and then potentially when they were dealing with a lot of the symptoms, the problems rather than the root cause. So maybe more of a strategic action somewhere along the lines to make sure that we can actually really get to the nub of the root cause of the overall problem rather than just tactically doing little things that are very hard to measure a gain from. And then following that, I was actually going to ask, I know there's been a lot of practical improvements over the years, but have we actually done anything to revise how we measure those gains, you know, to give them more of a proportionate feeling, to be a little bit more scientific about it, so it's a little bit more insightful than it currently is at the moment? Yes, I'm happy to take that one. So the work that we're doing in terms of the customer transformation program is actually redesigning our KPIs around customer experience so that we measure things that actually not only demonstrate impact but also help ensure that we understand what the customer experience is like now and where we need to go and what good looks like for us. And part of that is around ensuring we can get access to the right data to be able to measure that and that's where parts of the data and the technology aspects of that program come in to give us the levers to be able to access the data and measure those KPIs. So absolutely in terms of measuring customer experience and satisfaction, understanding the impact of the interventions that they're doing, as you said, the treating the root cause rather than the symptoms, those are all pieces of work that are underway under the customer improvement program. Can I just add one more point then? So when you look at the risk implications section of the document that's been provided, it says about, you know, there isn't necessarily a strategic level risk around complaints handling in itself, but there is whenever you look at the impact of each services. So I'm just trying to think whether there's enough accountability there, whether we're actually measuring the risk inherent within negative complaint handling rather than just the risk as a result of complaints in particular divisions of services. Because I'm thinking, you know, because I'm thinking, you know, bad complaints handling in itself, no matter where, is quite a key risk in itself. So I think potentially there's something there to consider adding that specifically onto the strategic risk register, I think, and possibly that will raise its profile some more. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We'll take that away. Thank you. Okay. I think we have done this item to death now, so I can't think of a better phrase for it, to be honest with you. So I'd just like to thank all the officers for – it's not an easy area. I fully appreciate that. So thank you all very much for all your input and to the committee members for scrutinising this. I know Amelia's got everything – whoops – Amelia's got everything written down, all the actions, so we'll proceed with those going forward. So just following this, we need to – the committee notes the content of this report, the analysis of the council's complaints performance, and secondly, the committee notes the improvement actions that have been delivered and actions in progress, as well as all the recommendations that we've made this morning. So are we all in agreement with that? Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So we're on to item number eight. I was going to propose a very quick ten-minute comfort break here, because we've been going for an hour and a half already just over that. So if the committee are happy with that, yeah, fine. So we'll convene in ten minutes' time. Thank you very much. So our next item is the item number eight, the annual governance statement, half-year update. And I believe we've got Andy Brown, Deputy Chief Exec, to talk to us about this remotely. Good morning, Andy. Good morning. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, committee. Yes. So I'll quickly introduce the report and probably open it straight up to questions. So the annual governance statement is an important document that comes as part of the approval of the annual accounts as well. It lists out the issues, the governance issues that are being faced by the authority. This is looking at the 23-24 annual governance statement is appended as Appendix one. And then it also focuses on the update issues as well, in terms of the issues raised as well. And that's obviously where some of the questions may come through in terms of the committee and how those issues are progressing and going forward. So I'll leave it there as an opening, Chair, and hand it straight over to you to questions. Thanks very much, Andy. So opening up to the committee, any questions or comments with regards to this? I think this is my first opportunity, actually, to meet Andy. And I just wonder whether Andy's got any sort of first reflections. This is probably the first time he's appeared at this meeting. So he's our new finance officer, senior finance officer. It's a shame you can't be here in person, Andy, but welcome. And, you know, how are you getting on as our new person? Thanks, Councillor Clack. Yes, apologies. I would like to be in person. I've just come back off of paternity leave, so I need to be around to make sure that my son can make it to his appointments and so on and so forth. But rest assured, going forward, I will be there in person. You know, I don't think I've ever been asked through an audit and governance committee, how's it going? Cabinet, informally, would definitely be asking. And I know Councillor Lewis is there as well, and we have regular updates from that perspective. I think for the sixth week, the budget is obviously a keen focus, and that's not necessarily an issue and concern for this committee. It needs to look at how we are governed and how we do certain things. I think if I wanted to focus on areas that concern me, then there is definitely one in this report around my Surrey and the governance issues around there. And I think it's right that it's been raised. We can certainly have a further discussion around that. And that's first and foremost, in my mind, and I've been talking to the chief internal auditor around some of the issues that have been presented, because first and foremost, as role as Section 151 is making sure that the financial setup and administration and the control environment that is there is robust. And currently there are clearly some issues there around Unit 4 and my Surrey as well that we are now rectifying. But it's been a very interesting opening six weeks, and I'm very much up and open for the challenge and what lays ahead. Thank you very much for that, and obviously congratulations, and I hope you're getting some sleep. Thank you, Helen. Steve. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I mean, one of the areas in this half-year update that obviously does interest me greatly is the DB&I programme in my Surrey, and especially given the internal audit reports that follow later in this agenda as well. To be perfectly honest, I don't think what we have in the AGS update gives a clear and accurate reflection about where it is, about the problems that are being experienced with my Surrey. And it would be helpful if it would contain references or at least updates to the work that internal audit basically have done or are doing, and the fact that there are no assurance in certain areas on my Surrey around payroll and pensions. There are some issues in the internal audit report which, when we get to them, we'll pick up on those, but this current document doesn't seem to make any reference to the fact that there are still significant issues that this organisation is dealing with. And it is dealing with them, but I think it would be remiss for us not to highlight that there are still problems and that they are being picked up and dealt with. But at the moment, it almost reads that there's nothing to see here, so let's move on. And I don't think that's the case. Yeah, no, fair point, Stephen. I don't know whether you want to comment on that at all, Andy. Yeah, I mean, the first thing I would say is certainly that it's not the intention to say that there's nothing to see here. So I do accept about in terms of the document being a bit more forthcoming in terms of the reality of the situation and where we're at. So I take those points on board because certainly when speaking to it, I'd be much more positioning in terms of the realities that have just been described in terms of there are a plethora of internal audit reports that are there showing partial assurance and therefore there is weaknesses in the control environment. So reflecting that in the update to the annual governance statement, more than happy to take that comment on board from the committee. And it does therefore reflect that there is work now actively going on. But I don't think, and I've said this to Liz and the Stabilisation Board as well, we shouldn't hide from the fact of the current position. We need to be more honest and transparent, not only with our staff, but equally with you as the Audit Governance Committee and the wider membership about the reality of where we are currently at and therefore the improvements that need to be making. So I'm more than happy that that is reflected in the AGS update. Thanks, Chair. So this report is coming to the committee for noting, is it possible that we are able to see an updated version of this offline before we actually note it and kind of rubber-stampered, as it were? And I agree with what you just talked about, that we do need to be more transparent. Not more transparent, we are transparent. The information is there. It's about basically highlighting and showing that this work has been done, that we acknowledge that there are problems and issues that are there. And it's not just that we're just not ignoring them. It's far from it. There's a lot of work being done. And we should highlight the fact that that work is being done and that there are steps to basically fix it. You know, we can't get it right first time, and it didn't go right first time. So, you know, we talked earlier in the committee about the governance review, which is great. There's so much work that has gone on with this particular focus as well. And there is a lot more work to be done, and it is being done. So let's talk about it for our members, for officers, for our residents as well. Let's show what we're actually doing, and that we acknowledge that there are actions there. And so I'm going to stop whispering again, Chair. I can see you. But again, if we can get an update of this to actually highlight those progress steps and maybe put more of a flavor of transparency into it, then that would be helpful. And if the committee can see it offline before we note it, that would be helpful, please. Of course. And David, you wanted to comment on the knowledge? Yeah, just to say, Chairman, I mean, if you look at the paragraph on DB&I in the report, page 66 and 67, I mean, it does say that there is a pipeline of technical fixes outstanding, which are impacting on several areas within the system, including payroll and pension services, which affect council employees and external customers. These are being prioritized for completion with oversight by the MySari Board. So, I mean, I think there is a degree of transparency in the report. I mean, we can add more detail if that's what members think. But I think, you know, that sentence, that paragraph pretty much captures the situation we face at the moment. The only thing I would like to add to that last paragraph is a timeline because it just says being prioritized for completion with oversight. But when is that? Do we have an idea, Andy, at all? Well, we have a MySari Stabilization Board set up. And Liz Mills is the SRO, but I also attend on that board as well. So we are looking at a more definitive time scale. And I think given that the acceptance around the update report not necessarily reflecting in full, I do think this does merit probably more of a detailed report to come back to the committee. And I'd be more than happy to do that, given where we currently are at. Council McCormick has raised an offline. I'm more than happy to actually bring an update report on this specific issue, given what's been raised, and also to openly reflect the work that we are doing with the timescales around that. So I'm more than happy that that is made as a recommendation following this discussion, that we actually do bring back a report on this specific point. And as work is ongoing, we can be adding to that and give a bit more of a fuller detail around the update of MySari and the Stabilization work that is actually happening. I think it would be most welcome, I think. Are you happy with that, Steve? Yeah, I mean, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I mean, it would be helpful to get an update on what exactly the Stabilization Board is doing, what their remit, well, obviously what their remit is, is to fix several problems. But what those problems are, what those action plans are, what the timelines are. We have heard previously that the board was being set up, and from the sound of it, it's being set up. So let's see what their scope of work is, their terms of reference, what's on their to-do list, the action plan. And it sounds like that's being offered, so I think that would be very helpful to bring that back to this committee at some point. And again, just to reflect in the half-yearly update that there, and I acknowledge with David as well, that there are references there, but, you know, for example, there isn't a reference there to say, oh, by the way, there's an internal audit being done on this, and it's got partial assurance on several key areas, and there is an action plan off the back of it. So you'd have to go digging for that. And that's the thing that, if we've got a report here, it would be useful to basically say, this work is being done, this is being found, the stabilization board's basically doing X, Y, and Z. So it's just firming up that picture, filling out that picture a little bit, if that would be mindful. No, I'm very happy with that. David, if you wanted to come back, and then Naisha. Just to say that I get regular updates on the work of the stabilization board. There is a very detailed terms of reference, there's a very detailed project plan for each of the areas where the team are working on improvement. And the timescale that the board is working to is the end of March. That's the final deadline that we're hoping to, or the board is hoping to meet in terms of clearing the significant backlog of issues. And I think it would be useful to bring an update to this committee, but progress has been made so far, and I'm pretty confident in the work that's taking place. Okay, thanks very much for that clarity. And Aisha. Thank you very much, Chair. Can I just find out when exactly was the stabilization board set up? What's the date? I don't know. I don't know whether David, do you know? Or Andy, do you know? It was about two months ago. I can't really exaggerate, but it was about two months ago, and there's a whole government structure underneath the board as well. So around about September, which really raises the questions. I mean, have we given the board enough time to glee all of the information that we're asking of them if it was only set up in September? So I think there does need to be some reality check here that the board is set up in September two months ago. No one can tell me the exact date, but if it was set up two months ago, I think we do need to allow it to do its work before we request all of the information and the details of it. I think it was very exciting when we discussed the cabinet response to the DB&I report we did talk, just at a very high level, and mentioned that the stabilisation board was being set up. So I think, I don't know whether it was recorded in the minutes, but it was certainly mentioned at the last meeting of this committee. Thanks very much, David. Anything else from anybody? Steve? Sorry, thank you, Jay. I'll stop in a second. It's a good point. The stabilisation board has been set up at a certain point in time. There were several BAU activities that were basically in flow, and again, I'll be corrected by officers if that were not true, but there were several BAU actions that were set up from the system going live in June, July last year, and those are basically wrapped up in the formal governance structure of the stabilisation board. So there has been work progressing, and again, from the sounds of it, they're all kind of targeted for completion or an update in March next year, so it may well be helpful to bring something to the February committee around then, which would allow them enough time to progress those actions and give them an update on that one. So there is work ongoing. The stabilisation board is new, but it's basically trying to wrap up a number of BAU items that have been identified out of the Unit 4, my Surrey item. No, that's a fair point. Yeah, I think you've got that. Maybe we can have some sort of update report for January, just to see where we are, that'll be fine. Sorry, Andy. That's right. Thanks, Chair. I mean, I think you've just picked up on that. I'm more than happy to take an update report because I think this is an important subject, an important matter that has got my attention, and I think it's important the committee get an update report on where we're at. I'm thankful about the timescales and being conscious of that, but I think we should be sharing where we're at, and there is a lot of work that's happened, and there's a lot of work that's been planned as well. And as I see it, as well, from where I've come into it, is that there is a period that is now needed for stabilisation, and there will be then a period that is going to be needed for further improvement and developments that are needed beyond the initial March deadline, and that is looking at the stabilisation period, and that's the reality of where we are at post-go live, which was June last year. There is a focus for me in terms of the internal audit reports and what they have flagged, and part of the stabilisation board is looking at those recommendations and ticking those off, and we need to demonstrate to you as the committee that that is happening and that there is focus on that, because to a certain extent we are where we are and that there has been history here, but we need to focus on the here and now and what is the future. So I think an update report in January is needed, and we can share what we are currently doing. You can then both be assured or post that committee, then obviously take that further, but I do think it is an important item to air. Thanks. Thanks very much indeed, Andy. So if nobody else has any comments or points, no, I can't see. So what we are asked to do is the committee confirm whether it is satisfied with the progress so far. I think we are subject to having an update report on my Surrey, I think, in January. Are we happy with that? Go on. Thanks, Chair. I mean, I think that the update report, if it can be, as we talked about, added to or filled out to reflect where we are with my Surrey, as we've discussed, that would be helpful just to basically flesh that out a bit more about all the work that is going on and to reflect the efforts to actually get those fixes in place. That would be helpful, and if we could have a look at that before we note it, please. Yep, fair enough. Does everybody agree with that? Yes, I think we are. Yep, okay. Fine. Thank you very much for that item. Yes. Yep, that's fine. Okay, moving on to item number nine, and thanks so much, Janet, the external audit for hanging on for so long. I didn't realise we'd still be going after two hours, but thank you all so much. So this is to update the Audit Governance Committee on the progress of the external audit of both the County Councils and Surrey Pension Funds, Statement of the Council 23-24. And who's presenting? Is this you, Nikki, presenting this? Thanks, Chair. I was going to pass straight over to colleagues from EY to introduce the report, but obviously I'm here for the questions. Okay, over to you, Janet. Thanks. Thanks very much, Chair. So, yes, in front of you you've got a progress report on the audit of the 23-24 Statement of Accounts, and it really sets out findings to date and progress to date against the key risk areas that were identified in our audit plan earlier in the year. Now, clearly, those are the areas of focus, the areas of risk, but there's all the rest of the financial statements that we also have to do our audit procedures on. So we've just highlighted progress to date against those key risk areas, but there's quite a significant amount of work still underway. I think in Nikki's report and in our report, we have continued to explain that given that it's a first year of our relationship, a first year of your new system, and a first year of some key staff members within your own team, we are finding our way through this, and it is taking us a little longer than we had anticipated working together to get the audit completed. Our plan is to close out the field work by the 18th of December, as set out in our report. You'll see that we've identified a number of amendments to date through our work, so one around the PFI disclosures, an issue around cash and debtor recognition, and some prior year adjustments that are needed on reserves, net pension interest cost, and another one since we wrote this report around lease disclosures. And there may be some other tweaks and amendments as we go through the closeout of our audit. The other thing that this report sets out for you is the work we've done on VFM arrangements. So we have completed our work to assess the arrangements in place around the three key domains that are set out in Section 2 and 3. And you'll see our draft value for money commentary against the reporting sub-criteria there. We have really great support from officers to be able to look across the organisation's arrangements, and you'll note that we didn't identify any risks of significant weakness, nor did we identify any significant weaknesses in those arrangements. So all being well that nothing else comes out as we complete our audit, we would anticipate having no exceptions to report around the value for money arrangements within Surrey County Council. So that's our report from page 87 on the main County Council financial statements. My colleagues, Hassan and Francis, who are responsible for the pension fund audit, are also online and their report is on page 109. So perhaps if I hand over to Hassan just to give you a brief summary. Thank you. Thank you, Janet. So the progress report outlines for members the status of the audit, particularly focusing on key risk areas. So we outline there where the audit is at. Also highlighting within the report areas of other focus on the financial statements. I particularly want to draw your attention to the fact that one of our responsibilities as pension fund auditors is to provide IS-19 assurances to schedule body auditors and we are on track for doing that by the end of the month. There have been some progress in terms of some of the areas where which have been outlined at the point in time, which the report was written as we've made progress in terms of work on level three investments. So the position that's outlined there has reduced in terms of the areas that we're looking at. But rather than going into detail, I'm happy to take any questions if members have any. Thank you very much indeed, Hassan, and thanks to Janet. Do any members have any comments? Matthew? It's a good, it's a nice document to read, if I must admit. But one thing I'll say, there's still quite a few things outstanding, and I know that we've got an optimistic 18th of December date to finish fieldwork. Presumably we've communicated the deadline that we've got, and are we confident that we're going to be able to get everything by that time? The two teams are working really closely in terms of what we need and what they need to produce for us, and how we're going to close those down over the next three to four weeks. So that timetable is in place. We are confident that we have a suitable timetable in place. We'll work through it, and we are hopeful that we will achieve that date. That's as much as I can give you, Matthew. Okay, Stephen. Yeah, so the first question, so I've scrolled down to the bottom of the document. On page 112, it talks about the data migration issues from SAP to Unit 4, and in the process of reviewing the assessment and the reconciliation performed, et cetera, et cetera. Would we be able to have a date when the results of that would be known? It may well be the completion date you just mentioned. And a question off the back of that would be any of the findings that come out of this external audit, would they be filtered into or provided into the stabilization board as well? Obviously, it depends what the impact is. You don't know at this particular point, but I can guess what they are. So there's external audit going on. We've got internal audit going on. So it's just basically trying to corral that information and make sure that it's available in the right place at the right time. So on page 92 of the main statement audit progress report, you'll see that we also have the same point. So we've completed that work for the financial statements for the County Council, and we're satisfied with the information that we've been provided with, and there's no issues to report. Hassan, I don't know whether you want to pick up on the pension fund as to whether or not you've now been able to complete that work. So on the pension fund side of things, we're in the process of looking at that, and if there are any issues arising, then we will be communicating that as part of our audit results report. That's great. So do you have a date when that will be complete, please? And then, Chair, I've got a couple of other questions as well, if that's okay. The audit results report will be issued at the conclusion stage of the audit. In terms of the, we're looking to get our work, initially we're looking to have our work plan, plan to completion by the end of November, and that will be moving into beginning of December, following on from the conclusion of our work, our review procedures, then we will draft an audit results report, which we will share with management, and then take to the next audit committee meeting. Okay, that's great. Thank you very much. Question, I think on page 92, if I might, please. The private finance initiative, there's a sentence or part of a sentence at the end of that, we're anticipating an in-year adjustment of circa 20.7 million pounds. Could you just possibly talk a little bit more around that and what that impact may have on the council, please? Should I go and then you, either one of us. Yeah, so it's an adjustment between the draft statements that were presented previously to this committee and the final statements that are due to come back in February, and it relates to just accurately reflecting the changes that were made to the waste PFI during the 2023 financial year. So it's an adjustment to the accounts. There is no kind of, there's no general fund out-turn impact of that adjustment. It's an adjustment to our balance sheet, which will increase the value of the assets held offset by a kind of increase to the long-term liability to pay the provider over the remaining contract life, essentially, if you want to add anything to that. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. And just on page 93, mapping issues and misstatements. So again, there's a paragraph there about first-year audit encountered difficulties in mapping the underlying data to the accounts provided by management. So again, when I see mapping issues, I dive off into IT data mapping and so forth. But could you just explain a little bit more about the problems or issues that have been experienced in that particular area, please? That would be helpful. Thank you. I'm happy to take that one too. Thank you, Councillor. So I suppose it's unfortunate it relates to cash and to debtors because that obviously flags lots of alarms. And I'll firstly just reassure it's not that the cash figure was not right or that the bank rec wasn't accurate. It is purely, so not an IT mapping issue, but essentially our entire chart of accounts gets mapped to a line on our balance sheet in terms of when we create the accounts. And it was a mismapping because we've had to remap, obviously, all the new codes in the new system to the balance sheet. It's not, there isn't a single line for cash in our chart of accounts. So it's literally the specific code included in, was included in the wrong category on the balance sheet. So it's being restated in the final accounts. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. It's the fact that you're just mapping the trial balance, isn't it, to your accounts? Essentially, yes. Okay. Just following on from that mapping issue, is that the main cause of the delay in the work, is it, Janet? To be fair, it was one of the fundamental delays towards the start of the audit. Because you have a new system, then you have to map that yourselves. Clearly, there have been a number of issues of just making sure that the organization understood how the system worked. And then we, as new auditors with a new mapping tool, come in and overlay that and immediately start to ask questions as to how has that actually flowed through. So that has been quite a detailed and lengthy process. So that's, and then I think the other issue is really just understanding and getting to know the organization, what the information is telling us, how we like to look at information. So, you know, Nikki and her team understanding how to present back to us what their judgments are, what's sitting within certain accounts and transactions, and really just working through that building of that understanding and relationship is the other main headline that I would give you. And then, you know, obviously there are elements within that as different accounts and balances that we've been working through. I'd like to just kind of agree, I suppose, on that basis. It's a very different approach to audits we've had in recent years. So we're learning each other's approach and the best way to answer the questions asked and understand the questions asked and present the information first time in a way that then means we can move on and take samples, et cetera, et cetera. It is sheer volume, I think, above anything else. And obviously the level of detail that external audits of local authority accounts quite rightly need to go into at the moment is just, it's just taking longer than the original time frame. What's the performance materiality on this audit? Calm. It must be a few million. It must be. About 44 million. Oh, OK. So really the mapping issue that 20 is not, it's even below PM. And obviously that's the kind of high-level materiality. That doesn't mean that we're only looking at numbers over 44 million and there are, you know, significant lists of transactions that are being tested and evidence being provided at levels significantly lower than that. OK. Fine. Steve, do you want... No, no. Anybody else for any questions or comments about this? So I think because, I think we're, the audit's due to finish on the 18th. Will this be coming to audit committee in January? That it should be. Yeah. Yeah. Yep, we anticipate bringing final auditing counts to January, subject to anything further found in the remaining audit, obviously. I can't... Working throughout Christmas to get it finished. I hope not. OK, so if nobody's got any other comments, so it's recommended that committee note the progress reports from Ernst & Young, attached to annexes 1 and 2. Are we all happy to note those? Thank you very much. Chair, would you... Oh, sorry. Sorry, Janet. Would you mind if we excuse ourselves? Yeah, of course. Yeah, yeah. You've been sitting here for so long. Thanks so much. Thank you. And thank you, Hassan, as well. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. OK, so item number 10, Treasury Management Mid-Year Report for 24-25. And I think this is in capable hands of... I'm sorry, I can't... John. John. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Chair. So I'm Joe Stockwell, Strategic Capital Accountant in the Corporate Finance Team. So he says the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report, which summarises the Council's Treasury Management activity during the first half of the year. So 24-25. This ensures the Council's compliance with the SIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management. A summarised quarterly Treasury Management report is also taken to Cabinet with the Financial Monitoring Report each quarter. This half-year report also reports the Council's performance against its debt and investment limits, as agreed in the Council's Treasury Management Strategy, which was approved by full Council in February. These are the debt limits, investment limits, borrowing maturity structure, and long-term investment limits. And the Council has remained compliant with all of these indicators. So the Council has also continued with its strategy of internal and short-term borrowing. This has seen an increase in the gross borrowing position of £169 million over the first half of the year to a balance of £911 million at the end of September. As you can see in the report, no new long-term borrowing has been taken in the first half of the year. This is to avoid locking in the current sort of still higher interest rates. We're expecting that interest rates will reduce over the next 12 months, although not quite as steeply as previously thought. And we meet regularly with our Treasury advisors, Arlene Close. This is to sort of just review where we are, and particularly to judge the best time to start converting some of the short-term balances into longer-term borrowing. Council holds short-term investments in overnight money market funds. Again, this is in line with the approved Treasury strategy. The rate of return on these funds broadly mirrors the bank rate. And as Proof stated, with the rates not reducing quite as quickly as previously thought, we're currently forecasting an over-recovery of interest receivable for the year. Thank you. Thank you very much, indeed. Do any members of the Committee have any comments or questions about this item? Well, just to say, it's not going terribly well at the moment, is it? So inflation has risen, I think, and the Bank of England are unlikely to lower rates, according to the Times today. Nothing really relevant to this. I'm just commenting. Our assumptions for Treasury purposes and, indeed, for kind of budget-term purposes are that bank-based rate will reduce over the course of the next 12 to 18 months, but kind of previous forecasts were. I don't think there was generally an expectation that rates would reduce in December, but that throughout 2025 they would reduce a number of times. I think we're now expecting them to reduce slightly slower, but still to reduce. But, yes, we keep a close eye on intelligence in that area, and we meet with our, in close, our Treasury advisors within days of every meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee. So we're keeping on top of that as best we can. But, yes, it's an interesting time. Some forecasts are changing. Thanks, Nicky. And I think you need a crystal ball. You just can't tell what's going to happen with interest rates. Stephen? It wouldn't be fair if I didn't ask a question, would it? Just on paragraph 16, the increase in short-term borrowing of $169 million. Can we just talk a little bit about that, please? Thank you. Yeah, so as committee are aware, the capital programme is approved by full council as part of the budget-setting process every year. Within that capital programme, a proportion of the capital investment is funded from borrowing. So while we continue to have a capital programme that contains investment funded from borrowing, there will be a need through the Treasury strategy for the council to borrow. We manage that, as Jo said, through internal borrowing and short-term borrowing, but it's kind of no surprise that there is an overall increase in our borrowing. We haven't done any long-term borrowing, so all of that increase at the moment is seen through an increase in short-term borrowing. That's short-term borrowing from other local authorities. In the main, anywhere from one month, three months, six months. There's a couple for nine months. Most of them are less than six months. And the reason for that strategy is, you know, short-term borrowing rates are kind of similar to PWLB rates at the moment. Historically, there's been a bigger gap between the two. There's similar rates at the moment, but obviously we're only locking in short-term borrowing for a matter of months on the assumption that interest rates are still starting to decrease rather than locking in for 10, 12, 20 years at that rate. We will be looking at that long-term, short-term balance across the portfolio, though, because we're pretty much 50-50 now in terms of short-to-long-term proportion. And that's, we tend to prefer to be closer to kind of 60, 40, 70, 30 in favour of long-term borrowing because that's essentially a fixed, predictable interest rate, whereas obviously short-term rates are, while they're fixed, they're short-term, so you're much more open to the risk of interest rate fluctuations through that. So we will be looking at that for the next few months. Thank you. I'm just looking back, slightly up the page, at Table 3 of a borrowing position. And correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like on the Public Works Loan Board, we reduced our exposure there by 3 million. Yes, so that's, so most of our debt with the Public Works Loan Board is maturity debt, so a repayment of the principal at the point that the loan ends. There are a couple of smaller loans that are annuity, and that 3 million decrease is the repayment of those loans, which will just kind of naturally happen as part of those terms. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. To be honest, I'm quite surprised that local authorities have got quite a high borrowing rate. I always expected them to be lower than borrowing from outside, but maybe I was wrong. So as I say, it's similar at the moment, and obviously remember that a lot of that PWLB borrowing hasn't been taken, well, definitely hasn't been taken out in the last two years, so that average rate reflects historic rates of borrowing as well. The local authority market tends to track base rate broadly. It tends to be a little bit slower to adapt to base rate drops, but does tend to broadly track that, depending on, you know, there are points in the year. Local authorities have the same pattern of cash balances through the year, so most local authorities have more cash at the beginning of the financial year than they do at the end of the financial year. You see dips in December and dips in March, so you do see that kind of supply and demand changes in rates as well, but they generally follow that as well. Thanks for that clarification, Nikki, thanks. Anybody else got any comments or points? No? Okay, so all we'll do is ask to note the content of the Treasury Management and Mid-Year Report for 24-25. Are we agreed? Thank you very much. And finally, on to the final item today, so this is the Internal Audit Progress Report, and thanks very much to Russ and David for hanging on for so long and Simon as well. So over to you guys. Thank you, Chairman. I'll keep you aware I'm the only thing keeping everybody from their dinner, so I'll be as brief as possible. I'm not planning to go through the report page by page. I hope we've articulated our findings clearly in the areas we've audited and you are clear why we have concluded the opinions that we have done, but clearly, if members have any questions on anything in the paper, please ask. I think it's important to reflect there's actually more positivity in the report than perhaps might be seen at first glance. Over half the opinions are of reasonable assurance that we've given, but there is an unavoidable focus, I think, and I suspect this has been foremost in the committee's mind on the work we've done in the Mysore space, particularly with payroll and pension enrolments and the user access and security orders, both of which were minimal assurance, but also, of course, the Mysore integration's work, which was partial assurance. So I wanted to make three, I suppose you call them contextual observations around that. The first of which is that we've heard at the committee before how complex it is to put a new ERP in place and I think we all recognise that this is a massive undertaking, particularly in the Council as diverse and complicated as ours. I would also, though, temper that with saying these audits came a year after Go Live, so the fact we have found weaknesses of this nature in the control environment still has to be a concern and I think that reflects some of the member comments earlier in the meeting. It begs a second observation about, well, what's the Council doing about it? And we know the answer to that is there is a stabilisation board. Again, we've covered a lot of that this morning, but I think it's just worth reflecting on our role in that. So we sit on the board ourselves. We are an active participant in the board. All of our audit reports that touch on anything to do with my Surrey are fed into the board and fed into the board's programme of work and I'm actually really positive about the progress that has been made in the areas certainly that I have purview for. To the extent that we are able now to start the follow-up on the Mysore integrations work in Q3, which is one of the audits reported to you today. We've also been able to start work on accounts payable, which was reported to you last quarter as partial insurance. So follow-up is already on the way there. We're doing more work around accounts receivable about the actions. So there is demonstrable progress in the audit actions being addressed. Clearly work to do in the payroll and security access arena. But again, I think we're hoping to get work underway in quarter four following up key actions there as well. So again, I think it's worth reflecting that here just for context. My last comment is a little more of a personal opinion, I suppose. I've been an auditor for over 30 years. I have never ever done an audit of minimal assurance on the corporate payroll system. Absolutely unprecedented, really. But equally unprecedented, to be fair, is how we reported it because we made it very explicit in the report that the audit opinion is about the process, not the people. And I think it's really important we reflect on that. It brought to mind to me a quotation from Yes Prime Minister, which I'm sure you remember on the television, where in the midst of one political drama, Prime Minister Jim Hacker says to Bernard Woolley, his private secretary, so when the chips are down, where does your loyalty lie? And Bernard's reply is, it's my job, Prime Minister, to keep the chips up. And essentially, Tom Holwood and his payroll team, I think, on behalf of the council who kept the chips up in respect to payroll, because despite the system and working in a very, very difficult situation, they've made sure that virtually all of us got paid correctly right the way throughout the whole of the period. And I think, again, I would like that to be recognised by the committee. The opinion is as low as we could have given it, but it's not to underestimate in any respect the work done by those staff. The only other thing I wanted to comment on very quickly is on page 148, which is in our KPI section. We are slightly below delivery, again, on the indicator for completion of the plan. We should be at 45%. We're effectively at 43%. So it's, to be honest, about one or two audits that didn't go out as draft. Primarily, that's because we spent so much more time doing other audits, notably payroll. But I think it's worth noting here, just because Russ and I at the moment are re-evaluating the plan content, and we're making sure that we give priority to follow-up work, both on lower assurance opinions within my Surrey, but also in service areas previously reported to the committee. Because what we want to do is go back before we need to give a year-end opinion and essentially have every opportunity to re-evaluate what's being done and see if we can raise that level of assurance. So I think necessarily that might mean some audits are deferred from this year's plan and reconsidered for next year's plan. And as a happy consequence of that, I think delivery might improve as well. So that was all I was going to say, Chairman. Thank you. But again, happy to take any questions. Thanks, David, very much for that detailed summary. Yeah, I must admit I agree with you in payroll. I've done many payroll audits and I've never seen sort of recommendation, no regular recs done, et cetera, et cetera. It's quite rare. But your comment that the team's still got the payroll out, et cetera, et cetera, you're a testament and it's not easy, you know, a testament to the team. So, yeah, all credit to them. Yeah, yeah. Matty and Dan Steven. Yeah, I've got a few questions. I think the first one, just in set the point number to page 127 when we say about non-opinion advisory pieces of work, what do we do during those pieces of work to ensure independence? Thank you. So, those pieces of work are still focused on governance, risk management and internal control. So, as far as I'm concerned, they are, they're still internal audit activities. It's just the method of delivery is different in that it's more real time. so, we're not involved in any decision making and we always make that clear. So, David mentioned earlier that we attend the My Surrey Stabilisation Board. We attend as an independent advisor to that board. We're not part of any decision making that's made there. So, whilst it's not, we're not issuing formal audit opinions as a result of that work, the reason we don't is because it's real time and it's advisory, it's support, it's challenge, but it's delivered completely independently of management. Thank you. And do you mind if I just follow up? So, I don't want to get too into the specifics and the My Surrey stuff and, quite frankly, the fundamental issues with that, but I was going to ask a question and apologies if it's not part of the legacy sort of history of it. But are we doing anything with the supplier of My Surrey regarding clawing some money back? I mean, if they've essentially sold us something that doesn't quite do what it's meant to do, presumably, you know, it's an off-the-shelf system, they provide some support, but I mean, are we doing anything to claw back some of the cost that's obviously involved in this? So, I think that's probably a question for Andy to answer, seeing as he's just popped up on the screen with his hand up. Yeah, thanks, Chair, through you, like Mr. Ben who pops up. From a commercial perspective, part of the My Stabilisation Board of things that I want to look at is that aspect. However, and I'll say this and I'm conscious we're in public session, is that when you enter into a contract, when you then have to follow the rules of that engagement from a legal perspective and I know from this perspective is that trying to find or build a legal case to try to recover that and finding where fault lies, you will get into some legal issues and contentions around that. We are having open dialogue with Unit 4 and we will continue to have that. I am not making any judgement at this point in time but I do know from experience and from what I've seen here that it would be very difficult to make a legal case stand in terms of any commercial issues around that point but that's not to say that it isn't being looked at as part of the ongoing work. Thanks very much Andy. Stephen, if you want to. Yes, thank you Chairman. Clearly it's always a concern isn't it to have reports of minimal and partial assurance and this report is littered with them unfortunately. And really one or two follow-up questions because so far as the Nicely issue is concerned if I remember rightly we had a couple of minimal reports related to that at our last meeting. And I'm just wondering when in fact we're going to have a report on follow-ups so far as all of those are concerned. I mean whether that might be part of the discussion that we have at our January meeting I don't know but it's an important question to know when there will be a follow-up and how that will be developed. there's also a partial assurance report on the fire and rescue service on the aspect of their work and again same question when are we likely to see a follow-up to that. And the third one of course is the unusual one of three partial assurance reports from schools and now what happens to those may well be that they're dealt with differently I don't know but I think it's an important question that we should have an answer to. Thank you. So the principle applies for both schools audits and any other audits in fact if we have reported a lower assurance opinion be it partial or minimal we will do a follow-up. The timing will very much depend on when the dates for the agreed actions fall because clearly some things can be done very quickly other actions will take longer to get implemented fully but anything that we do by way of a follow-up will be reported to this committee so whether we've been able to raise the level of assurance or not you will see the results of that. I think that probably addresses your question. I can't give you very specific timing in respect to the January's committee but some of the follow-up we're starting to do in the myceria space on accounts receivable accounts payable conceivably will have an update for you even if not so Lepore's to actually publish by then. Thanks David. Okay thanks Stephen. Any other quick Stephen? What's coming? Nothing on myceria uniform. I think your comments were well made and I think we've done that to death today already about myceria. I was going to talk a little bit about the on-street parking arrangements which are on the bottom of page 140 and the identification of the following key findings is part of the review that at the outset of that contract with NSL they were understaffed in respect of civil enforcement officers and consequently they've now recruited of course. But the purpose of the audit was to evaluate the effectiveness of the current contract management process and procedures including contract monitoring, performance measurement, et cetera. So apart from acknowledging that at the outset of the contract NSL didn't have the staff, they said they should have or the procurement exercise, the tender process, how did that happen? Basically you have a tender process, you say I can do X, you get given the contract and then you go oh actually I can't do X, I've got to go and recruit. So how would that happen? I don't get it. To give you a detailed answer I think to be honest I'd have to go away and have a look and give you a written response. My gut feeling is I think there were issues about Tupi and I think there were complications in the process of how long Tupi took to get staff where they needed to be. but if you'll permit it I will go back to the committee through Amelia, although Simon may know. I can contribute to this discussion because you'll see in the list of irregularities we looked at we actually had a whistleblowing around park enforcement and it was to do with that mobilisation stage. some of the issues is attributable to recruitment as well. There was a significant increase in the number of enforcement officers that they needed in that period and they didn't recruit quite as many as they needed to. Through the investigation work we found that they were able to borrow enforcement officers from some of their existing contracts so they have a number of contracts in the London boroughs and also surrounding Surrey. So they did borrow from those where they were receiving those difficulties around recruitment. As the contract progressed then they were able to recruit more and I think that leveled out a little bit. But yeah, just a small anecdote from the work that I did. If I might share. Thank you both for that. I mean I'm just curious because a tendering process says broadly speaking a set of requirements can you do X and yes I can do Y and then you then go through that process and there must be some evidence provided you can actually fulfill those requirements and deliver what you said you can do. And then at some point that contract has been awarded and then there's a oh actually we can't do that. I agree that there have been actions to fulfill those, you know, the staffing requirements but it's getting to that point about the tendering process and the due diligence around that around saying actually how did that get through that you said you could do that we awarded the contract on that basis and then suddenly it turns around that you can't do what you said you were going to do. so it's the due diligence aspect of that that I'm curious about. I fully hear what you're saying. NSL worth it than I think is still the largest supplier in this field so I don't know whether necessarily any other competitive bid would have been any better in the resourcing side but I will endeavour to go away and have a look and see what we can feedback to you if that's okay. Thank you very much that would be interesting. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thanks Stephen. Anybody else got any more? Matthew? Yeah I don't want to keep flogging a dead horse with my but on the payroll and the payroll addendum work that you did so the first point I was going to make was about like presumably you're happy with the robustness of the manual controls that are then operated within payroll and then my second question was was it internal audits decision to do the addendum pensions enrolment audit or was that it was yeah it wasn't management's request. So with regard to manual controls am I happy yes and no is the honest answer to that I mean the controls do the job they need to do but it makes the process extremely clunky and inefficient so we haven't got a streamlined and effective process in place that we would have expected for you know where we are now but in terms of are we putting in place a stronger control environment because of the manual controls yes we are. The reason we split the payroll audit out essentially was a capacity issue as much as anything the the pension although it's a pensions enrolment topic it stems from what payroll are doing rather than the pensions team and to have one audit to try to do both audits simultaneously would have driven anybody mad quite frankly so we did one then the other but deliberately have called them or pulled them together into the same opinion because it is essentially part of the same piece of work around corporate payroll. I did have one other is that okay? Yeah yeah go on. Just on moving down so page 134 for the user access and security review just to summarize so are we saying basically we're not compliant with the rules set out by the pension regulator and do we know clearly what it is we don't comply with and have we had to communicate that with any regulator? That is in section 1.12 on page 134. So basically we were saying the data breaches have been identified with officers access data that is not required for further rules. I'm struggling to find it. Sorry it's on page 134 of your update and it's paragraph 1.12 or 1.12 under my Surrey user access review and it's talking about data breaches and the question was really like have we had to escalate those data breaches? Yeah I don't sorry I was confused by the reference to pension because I couldn't that's why I wasn't I don't think specifically pension regulator is mentioned in that. Oh yeah sorry I can't have crossed off sorry. Sorry my mistake on the pension regulator point. It was more general about data breaches rather than pension regulator. Have we had to escalate any data breaches at any point? So I don't know the answer to that because that reference was made to data breaches that were identified before we did the audit. So that sort of almost prompted us into conducting the review. So I mean we can certainly find out whether they were not those were significant enough and sufficient to warrant subsequent reporting. We can let you know for sure. We have an incoming audit manager who may have an answer for you. Mark Winton who's our IT manager whoever saw this audit. Yeah so the breaches went through the normal sort of data protection officer process who was aware of these and would have made those decisions about whether to escalate to the information commissioner's office. I've got a funny feeling one might have been but I don't know for definite and like we said we'll certainly find out but it went through the proper process and it was definitely considered whether there's a need to escalate. Okay thanks very much everybody. Any other comments, questions? Hopefully not. Okay so we're just asked to note the report and consider any further action required and issues raised so I think we've raised everything about my Surrey and the previous item so there's nothing, I don't have nothing else that we need to owe you a report apart from the progress report coming up next year. Okay so are we all agreed? Yes wonderful. So date of next meeting is next year 22nd of January 2025 so just let me wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year because I will not see you again before the New Year. So thank you all the offices. Oh yes look Amelia's just reminded me please note that we've been sent an invite to the Treasury Management Strategy Joint Resources and Performance Select Committee Audit and Governance Committee Training Session are in close on 16th of January 2025 from 2 to 3.30 and it's via teams so thank you very much and conclude the meeting at 12.41 thanks very much indeed thank you.