Meeting documents

The Chairman will allow members of the public to present a petition on any matter within the Committee’s remit. Questions or statements about any matter on the agenda for this meeting will be taken at the time when each matter is considered.

The Chair advised the Committee that 3 questions had been received from Mr Nigel Behan in relation to agenda item 10, the questions had been circulated before the meeting and published. The questions were taken as read and the Interim Director of Finance was invited to respond to each question.

Question 1 - Should this set of criteria "on the adequacy of systems in place" be expanded to include Auditing of Social and Environmental commitments (financial costs and savings etc as well) that a Local Authority has determined?

The Interim Director of Finance replied that any interested parties were entitled to submit a response to the Call for Evidence and Sir Tony Redmond had made it clear that all responses received will be valued. The Council welcomed the drive for continual improvement in transparency in financial reporting for all Local Authorities so long as this was done in a way that was comparable across authorities enabling consistency of audit opinion.

Question 2 - Should there a more robust Public Interest test than the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA/EIR) examples?

The Interim Director of Finance replied that Public Interest Reports were provided by external auditors and not the Council. The powers within the Freedom of Information Act are broad and the Council aimed to make its reporting robust and transparent such that a Public Interest Report would not be required.

Question 3 - Do you think that the Audit Function should cover the competence of outsourced contracts beyond the basic KPI remits etc and be able to make recommendations if contractors do not meet the requirements set (including financial contract "variations")? 

The Interim Director of Finance replied that all contracts were awarded following due process and then monitored throughout the contract. Any significant variations would be reported as part of financial performance reporting such as budget monitoring. The Council continually improved its  financial reporting transparency, and had made significant improvements in the last 18 months as part of the Financial Imperative improvements.  It was noted that the Council would comment on our improvement journey and how it had enabled better transparency of reporting in its response.

The Chair advised the Committee that 3 questions had been received from Mr Nigel Behan in relation to agenda item 10, the questions had been circulated before the meeting and published. The questions were taken as read and the Interim Director of Finance was invited to respond to each question.

Question 1 - Should this set of criteria "on the adequacy of systems in place" be expanded to include Auditing of Social and Environmental commitments (financial costs and savings etc as well) that a Local Authority has determined?

The Interim Director of Finance replied that any interested parties were entitled to submit a response to the Call for Evidence and Sir Tony Redmond had made it clear that all responses received will be valued. The Council welcomed the drive for continual improvement in transparency in financial reporting for all Local Authorities so long as this was done in a way that was comparable across authorities enabling consistency of audit opinion.

Question 2 - Should there a more robust Public Interest test than the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA/EIR) examples?

The Interim Director of Finance replied that Public Interest Reports were provided by external auditors and not the Council. The powers within the Freedom of Information Act are broad and the Council aimed to make its reporting robust and transparent such that a Public Interest Report would not be required.

Question 3 - Do you think that the Audit Function should cover the competence of outsourced contracts beyond the basic KPI remits etc and be able to make recommendations if contractors do not meet the requirements set (including financial contract "variations")? 

The Interim Director of Finance replied that all contracts were awarded following due process and then monitored throughout the contract. Any significant variations would be reported as part of financial performance reporting such as budget monitoring. The Council continually improved its  financial reporting transparency, and had made significant improvements in the last 18 months as part of the Financial Imperative improvements.  It was noted that the Council would comment on our improvement journey and how it had enabled better transparency of reporting in its response.