Agenda item

The Mayor informed Council that this item would precede that for the Leader’s Announcements to allow for a better flow of business at the meeting. (The minutes are presented in the order detailed on the published agenda.) It was noted that the proposal was to reduce the number of Members on the Committee from nine to five and to remove responsibility for scrutiny of the Treasury Management Strategy from the Audit Committee and for this to be reallocated to  Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The Mayor highlighted that notice of an amendment had been received. Democratic Services had been asked to prepare a procedure note for this to be addressed. This had been circulated to all Group Leaders in advance of the meeting with the request made that this should be followed.

Councillor Schofield, the Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Finance & Governance, introduced and proposed the recommendations. It was explained that the Audit and the Overview & Scrutiny Committees undertook important functions on behalf of the Authority to help maintain standards of good governance and accountability. It was required to regularly review their remit to ensure they were meeting local needs whilst complying with external guidance and standards. Audit Committees were particularly in the spotlight given serious governance failures elsewhere. As a result, there were two recommendations being made: 1) to reduce the Audit Committee down to five members plus an independent member and ensure they all received the detailed training and briefings needed, and 2) to move responsibility for oversight of Treasury Management back to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in response to revised guidance from Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA). It had been discussed that the Treasury Management Scrutiny Panel would be re-established.

Councillor (James) King seconded the recommendations.

The Mayor invited contributions from Group Leaders but none were forthcoming.

The Mayor invited contributions from all other Members but none were forthcoming.

Having seconded the recommendations, Councillor (James) King was invited to speak to them but declined the opportunity.

The Mayor invited Councillor Booton to propose his amendment to the recommendations. It was explained that this was to limit the reduction in the number of Audit Committee members to seven as opposed to the proposed five. This was described as more logical. Average Audit Committee attendance was 80% which in practice, based on a membership of five would mean four members attending with any substitutes not having had sufficient training to have a good understanding. However, with a membership of seven, meetings would benefit from five members based on current attendance rates. It was stressed that success would depend on availability to attend training. One training session received a 70% attendance rate. With only five Committee members, this would mean on average only four people attending. With a larger Committee of seven, this would result in five members attending any training. A Committee of seven would be much more pragmatic and would preserve diversity of thought.

Councillor Chester seconded the amendment to the recommendations and  reserved the right to speak.

In accordance with Article 15 (Paragraph 15.2) of the Council’s Constitution, the Monitoring Officer confirmed the proposed amendment was lawful and constitutional.

The Mayor invited Group Leaders to speak on the proposed amendment.

Councillor Brunt, the Leader of the Council, thought there were better ways to ensure diversity of thought and ensure sufficient attendance at Audit Committee meetings. Increasing the quoracy of the Audit Committee to five would ensure that there were always sufficient members in attendance. Additionally, that training for the Audit Committee should be made mandatory. On which basis the amendment was not supported and Members were encouraged to support the recommendations as originally proposed.

Councillor Essex, in his capacity as the Leader of the Green Group, explained how he agreed with the Leader and that arrangements for the Audit Committee should be consistent with those for other Committees. If the membership and quoracy were both set at five, a 100% quoracy would rarely be achieved. Therefore, the Councillor supported a quoracy of five and a Committee size of seven. This was thought needed given the Audit Committee would be scrutinising three sets of accounts during the next municipal year.

In the absence of Councillor Harrison, Councillor Bray spoken on behalf of the Residents Association Group. The Audit Committee was described as one of the most technical. As a result, it was not a matter of putting a lot of people on the Committee. Rather, the Audit Committee required five people who were adequately trained. The suggestion of in-person training was greatly welcomed with this being made compulsory including for substitutes supported. Increasing the number of Members would not resolve these issues.

Councillor Chester sought confirmation that Audit Committee substitutes would be trained and the quoracy for the Committee set at five.

The Mayor invited all other Members to speak on the amendment.

Councillor Walsh expressed his support for the comments made by Councillor Bray and the Leader that the original recommendations should be implemented and the Audit Committee have five members with the key skills required.

Having seconded the amendment and reserved the right to speak, the Mayor invited Councillor Chester to speak. It was explained that given the complexity and gravity of the material being considered it would be ideal to have a broad spectrum of members on the committee who along with substitutes were well trained. Concerned was expressed about the reduction in numbers down to five. It was recommended that the Committee needed to be fully reflective of all parties. It was hoped that Council would be able to find the middle ground.

Having seconded the original recommendations, Councillor (James) King was invited to respond to the debate on the amendment but declined the opportunity.

Having proposed the amendment, The Mayor invited Councillor Booton to respond to the debate. The concerns being raised were appreciated. It was not a matter of throwing more people at the Committee. It currently comprised nine members all of whom brought different qualities and experiences to their role. Reducing it by four members was doing it a disservice. No rationale for the reduction in members was proposed in the original recommendation other than the provision of bespoke training which could be readily provided to a greater number. A larger membership would give diversity of thought and allow all political parties a seat at the table. A reduction from nine to five members was drastic. A reduction down to seven for the new municipal year and five in 2024/5 was suggested as a compromise which would support a niche talent pool to be developed. If Councillors were willing to give their time to the Audit Committee, they should not be restricted from doing so. The original recommendation was stopping four colleagues from coming back to the table next year.

Having proposed the original recommendations, the Mayor invited Councillor Schofield to respond to the debate on the amendment. It was highlighted that  consultation on the recommendations had taken place with the Chair of Audit, Group Leaders and the members of the Audit Committee with general agreement and understanding of the rational gained. The Committee needed to be a focused group. Its remit represented a very technical area, with interest and ability needed. The recommendations would give the diversity of input and thought needed especially with the addition of an Independent Member. Making training mandatory and resetting the quoracy for the Committee would need to be discussed. The Committee would remain politically balanced again ensuring diversity.

The Mayor detailed the recommendations with the proposed amendment:

·         Amend the Audit Committee’s Membership to seven elected Members plus one Independent Member; and

·         Amend the Audit Committee’s Terms of Reference to remove responsibility for scrutiny of the Treasury Management Strategy and associated reports. Consequentially, to amend the Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s Terms of Reference to add responsibility for Treasure Management scrutiny.

The recommendations with the amendment were put to the vote and were defeated.

The Mayor detailed the recommendations as originally proposed:

·         Amend the Audit Committee’s Membership to five elected Members plus one Independent Member; and

·         Amend the Audit Committee’s Terms of Reference to remove responsibility for scrutiny of the Treasury Management Strategy and associated reports. Consequentially, to amend the Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s Terms of Reference to add responsibility for Treasure Management scrutiny.

The recommendations as originally proposed were put to the vote and approved.

RESOLVED: that Audit Committee and Overview & Scrutiny Committee Terms of Reference be revised as originally proposed.