Agenda item

CSD 21029

The Committee discussed the matters that had arisen at the previous meeting.

The Chairman noted that 2/3 of the matters outlined would be updated upon in the Internal Audit Progress report.

The first matter was concerning training being provided to members of the Committee, and the Chairman hoped that Members had been able to attend the recent training session that had been provided by Mazars, and he asked for feedback concerning this. A Member felt that the profile of the Committee could be increased if there was a report from the Audit Sub-Committee going to Full Council at least once a year. A discussion took place about the possibility of raising the profile of the sub-committee to enable it to be upgraded to a full committee, rather than being a sub-committee of the GP&L Committee.

The Chairman remarked that in the training it was recommended that the Chief Executive should attend the Audit Sub-Committee on a regular basis. He expressed the view that this was not required, and that on some occasions (when necessary), Chief Officers had attended meetings of the Sub-Committee. A Member commented that currently, discussions were being made concerning the status of the Pensions and Investment Sub-Committee, so now may be an appropriate time to have similar discussions with respect to the Audit Sub-Committee. A Member remarked that it was the case that the minutes of the Audit Sub-Committee were sent to the GP&L Committee, but as far as he was aware, the GP&L Committee did not have the authority to overrule any decisions made by the Audit-Sub Committee. A number of Members felt that this being the case, there were grounds for making the Audit Sub-Committee a full committee that reported to Full Council.

The Head of Audit and Assurance said that in Bromley Council, the functions of audit scrutiny were dealt with between the GP&L Committee and the Audit Sub-Committee. In Bromley it was the case that the GP&L Committee dealt with the statutory accounts. He explained that as a result of the Redmond Review, the MHCLG (Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government) supported the idea that an annual report from the External Auditors should be submitted to Full Council. If this was the case going forward, then it may be appropriate for the Audit Sub-Committee (or Audit Committee if the Sub-Committee became a full committee) to present a report to Full Council at the same time. It was noted that the MHCLG was currently working on guidance for councils (in collaboration with CIPFA, the NAO and LGA) concerning the submission of audit reports to Full Council and were also considering what guidance should be provided with respect to appointing independent members to audit committees. The Chairman asked if these proposed changes had implications in terms of the Council’s resources. The Head of Audit and Assurance responded in the affirmative and commented that it would be important to avoid duplication.

There was a general consensus amongst Members that central government was placing more emphasis on governance for large organisations in an attempt to avoid financial problems leading to the collapse of the organisation. They were trying to avoid future financial failure. One way of doing this was to give a higher profile to audit reporting, including the reporting of issues to Full Council. In this way knowledge of the risks being faced would be spread across the organisation as a whole. A Member commented that it would be a useful exercise to see how other local authorities were managing their audit functions. With reference to training it was felt that this was required so that Members were as equipped as possible to represent the public. It was noted that some Members had missed out on the previous training session as they had not received the link. The Head of Audit and Assurance promised to send out the link to any who wanted it so that they could access the training session recording. 

A Member expressed the view that the GP&L Committee was too big. It consisted of 15 Members, and now that there was not so much licencing to deal with, it was too big and its size needed to be reviewed. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman said that the size and composition of the GP&L Committee was not within the remit of this Committee to discuss.

RESOLVED that the Matters Arising report be noted, and that the Head of Audit and Assurance would disseminate the link of the training session that had been organised recently by Mazars.