Agenda item

1.     The report was presented by Governance Advisor, Ms Katy Reynolds.  Ms Reynolds highlighted the following key points to Members:

        a)     The paper formed part of the ongoing discussion regarding the role and purpose of Governance and Audit Committee as a whole and specifically in relation to oversight of governance, risk and control.

        b)     The main issues in the case studies (as set out in the paper) were drawn to Member’s attention as they had resulted in a decision to intervene. Many of the areas related to areas where the Committee had oversight of at KCC.

        c)     The report came ahead of the scheduled training due to be delivered by Beth Evans for week commencing the 1 December 2025.  This would consider the learning opportunities which flowed from the interventions and how they could have been avoided.

2.     In answer to Member questions, the following was said:

        a)     A Member commented that within the case studies featured  in the paper, there were several situations which involved tier one authorities and drew Committee Members’ attention to the Council’s current financial situation and potential consequences.

        b)     Mr Betts confirmed that the Quarter 2 Monitoring Report was a public document and had been reported to Cabinet Committees.  The Quarter 3 report was due for similar submission in January 2026 and the most recent and up to date information on the Safety Valve Agreement would be contained in this.  The broader issue of SEND deficits was a wider issue which needed to be addressed collectively across Central and Local Government.  The deficit was not included on the balance sheet and before a response could be provided in relation to the financial position of the Authority, officers had to wait to see what action Central Government would take.

        c)     A Member indicated that, within the Q3 Monitoring report, the highest overspend in Adult Social Care and the Safety Value dedicated to school grants should be specifically addressed.  The Member commented that he wanted it recorded via a recommendation that a request for Q3 and the points which could impact on the best value for duty were requested.

        d)     Mr Watts clarified that the Member requested assurance that when the Q3 report was delivered it specifically addressed the issues of concern and in turn, the Committee would consider the best value implications of this. Mr Watts highlighted to Members that the Scrutiny Committee had previous considered the Q2 Monitoring Report at a recent meeting and therefore it was important that Committee did not spend time considering the same reports and items.

        e)     A Member commented that clear sight of the issues with overspend, and the measures outlined by the previous Member were required and commented that this suggestion had his support.

        f)      An independent Member of the Committee commented that, in order to be able to support and help the Committee, it was important to look forward and be able to give guidance to the organisation which gave benefit of joint experience.

        g)     It was proposed, and seconded, that the relevant points within the Q3 Budget Report concerning overspend, which linked to best value duty, were presented to the Committee for discussion and review, as evidence of the Committee’s actions, if subsequent enquiries were made.

        h)     The Committee voted in favour of the recommendation therefore the motion was carried.

3)     RESOLVED Members NOTED the contents of the Lessons Learned from

        Other Councils Report;

        RESOLVED that the relevant points within the Q3 Budget Report

        concerning overspend, which linked to best value duty, be presented to

        the Committee for discussion and review, as evidence of the Committee’s

        actions, if subsequent enquiries were made.