Minutes:
The Chair reported that he had been in discussion with officers about the best way of progressing the Group Audit Committee arrangements. At the time of the last meeting of the Committee in March, there was only one non-dormant entity, but there had been some difficulty in engaging that entity in completing the governance questionnaire which had been agreed by Audit Committee.
He had discussed the current position with the Council’s Director of Assurance and Chief Internal Auditor, and had identified that a good way forward would be to revisit the questionnaire with the Chief Operating Officer of Advance.
So, in the meanwhile, from this meeting onwards:
- The Chief Internal Auditor would provide the Group Audit Committee with a copy of the Audit Plan for each non-dormant entity, as an information item each year.
- there would be a standing ‘Group Audit Committee’ agenda item on the agenda of Audit Committee from September’s meeting onwards.
- under that item, the Chief Internal Auditor would provide a short update on any internal audits completed on each non-dormant entity (e.g. audits completed and assurance levels) and any other matters he considered might be material to the framework of governance, risk management and control arising from group entities.
- the external auditor would be invited to provide any comment or information which they wished to, under the same ‘Group Audit Committee’ item on the agenda at each meeting (there may be a need to write separately to the partner at Mazars who deals with Advance, as he understood he and Cameron practised some type of ‘ethical walls’ between them. But then Mazars will have been informed formally that if there is anything they wish to raise, they have a mechanism for doing so).
- the Group Audit Committee (i.e. this committee, NCC Audit Committee) could ask any questions about governance regarding group entities under this item.
He raised this matter now in order to provide a record that he and senior officers had given some thought to County Council’s decision in November, and the actions taken under the previous Chair of the committee, Councillor Hill, were progressing. He hoped members would agree that this was a sensible way forward for the issue.
Councillor Oliver supported this approach and suggested that Advance be asked to attend the Committee when reports were being reviewed so they could respond on points. There had also been a report done by KPMG so if Advance were to be discussed at the September meeting, then KPMG should be invited, along with the Chair of the Advance Shareholder Group.
In terms of the KPMG report, the Chair agreed. Regarding Advance representatives, this was acceptable when the agenda warranted it as there may not be reason for them to attend every meeting.
Councillor Oliver asked how members could get issues onto the audit programme, and whether it would be acceptable to email committee members with his initial thoughts about that. The Chair agreed there was a need for an open and agreed mechanism to avoid lobbying by individuals.
Ms Mitchell advised members that a work programme was produced every March to make sure that the requirements for the Audit Committee as set out in the constitution were met, and so that the members knew which reports to expect and when. Decisions about the use of resources were for either the Chief Internal Auditor or the external audit partner, who were governed by a strict set of professional standards regarding what the Committee could and couldn’t do. It would be wrong to suggest that the Committee could raise things which were then automatically looked at. She encouraged members to discuss any issues with the Chair or either internal or external audit, but there needed to be a debate in the Committee about the correct way of taking matters forward.
The Chair agreed on the need for clear communication and to follow the established procedures, and having the channels to do that was important.