Agenda item

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Internal Audit Partnership setting out a detailed Action Plan to bring about the improvements to the operation of the Audit Committee identified by the peer review exercise undertaken by Local Government Improvement and Development (LGID).  It was noted that:-

·  LGID was commissioned by the Council to undertake a peer review of the Audit Committee.  The review was commissioned jointly by Ashford, Maidstone, Swale and Tunbridge Wells Borough Councils and included interviews and discussions with Councillors, Officers and partners.

·  The objective of the review was to allow each Audit Committee to be benchmarked against examples of best practice and thereby help the Committee to become more effective in undertaking its functions.  The final report identified six main areas of development for the Maidstone Audit Committee as follows:-

ü  A more robust training programme was needed for Committee Members.

ü  Greater challenge of reports/issues was needed.

ü  Better tracking of the Committee’s recommendations was required.

ü  The governance assurance role of the Committee could be expanded, avoiding any unnecessary duplication with overview and scrutiny.

ü  The Committee should seek to measure its effectiveness and produce an annual report.

ü  There was scope for the Committee to expand its role to support the Council in its broader partnership working, particularly in terms of governance arrangements and risk, both financially and generally in delivering key outcomes.

·  The Action Plan had been drawn up following an informal session between Members and Officers to identify the actions to be taken in relation to the report’s findings and recommendations.

In conjunction with this report, consideration was given to the report of the Head of Democratic Services concerning the level and type of training required to be a Member/Substitute Member/Independent Member of the Audit Committee.  The Head of Internal Audit Partnership suggested that there were two elements to the training required: induction training for new Committee Members and a broader range of continuous professional development for existing Members.  Subject to Members’ agreement, a skills and experience matrix would be developed for the Audit Committee.  This matrix could be used to analyse the skills and experience of the existing Committee Members, identify any gaps and then develop a training programme for existing Committee Members and an induction programme for newly appointed Committee Members.  The minimum level of training required would cover the induction element, including an explanation of the role of the Committee and its terms of reference together with an overview of the Council’s activities and the financial and risk environment.  This should, if possible, be undertaken before a Member attended his/her first meeting of the Committee.

The Committee asked a number of questions of the Officers relating to the development of the skills and experience matrix and the arrangements for assessing Members against it.  It was suggested, and agreed, that consideration should be given to “succession” training and joint training with the other Internal Audit Partnership authorities.

Arising from the discussion and in response to a question by a Member, the Head of Finance and Customer Services updated the Committee on the position with regard to the appointment of an Independent Member.  It was noted that the post had been advertised but only one application had been received.  In view of the circumstances, the decision had been taken, in consultation with the Chairman, to re-advertise.

RESOLVED:  That the detailed Action Plan to bring about the improvements to the operation of the Audit Committee identified by the peer review be approved and that the Officers be requested to develop the proposed initiatives and report back to the Committee in the new Municipal Year.