Meeting: Council	Date: 30 September 2021

Wards affected: All

Report Title: Renumeration for Audit Committee Independent Person

When does the decision need to be implemented? As soon as possible

Audit Chairman and Cabinet Member Contact Details: Councillor Loxton, Chairman of the Audit Committee, robert.loxton@torbay.gov.uk and Councillor Cowell, Cabinet Member for Finance, Darren.cowell@torbay.gov.uk

Director/Assistant Director Contact Details: Martin Phillips, Chief Finance Officer, martin.phillips@torbay.gov.uk

1.	Purpose of Report

1.1	The Audit Committee have been seeking to appoint an Independent Person, initially the position was advertised as a voluntary and unpaid post. The advert attracted a small number of candidates who upon assessment did not meet the requirements contained within the person specification. A further attempt to recruit to the post was made and was unsuccessful. It is therefore hoped that financial renumeration will attract a suitable candidate.

2.	Reason for Proposal and its benefits

We want Torbay and its residents to thrive.

We want Torbay to be a place where we have turned the tide on poverty and tackled inequalities; where our children and older people will have high aspirations and where there are quality jobs, good pay and affordable housing for our residents.

We want Torbay to be the premier resort in the UK, with a vibrant arts and cultural offer for our residents and visitors to enjoy; where our built and natural environment is celebrated and where we play our part in addressing the climate change emergency.

2.1	The proposals in this report help us to deliver this ambition by ensuring the Council is fit for the future.

2.2	The reasons for the decision are to ensure the Council follows good practice as set out in CIPFA’s ‘Audit Committees: Practical Guidance for Local Authorities and Police’ 2018 Edition.

3.	Recommendation(s) / Proposed Decision

1.	That an allowance of £500 per annum be offered as renumeration to the Independent Person for Audit Committee and that the Monitoring Officer be instructed to update the Members Allowance Scheme accordingly; and

2.	That the Head of Governance readvertise the post, in light of, the decision set out in 1. above.

Appendices

None

Background Documents

CIPFA: ‘Audit Committees: Practical Guidance for Local Authorities and Police’ 2018 Edition

Supporting Information

1.	Introduction

1.1	At the meeting of Council on 26 September 2019 it was agreed that:

that the advert and role profile as set out in Appendix 1 be approved; and

that authority be delegated to the Employment Committee to appoint an Independent Person for the Audit Committee for an initial term of 5 years, in accordance with the role profile set out in Appendix 1.

The initial advert attracted a small number of candidates who upon assessment did not meet the requirements contained within the person specification. A further attempt to recruit to the post was made and was again unsuccessful.

1.2	It became apparent that the Council was not alone in seeking an Independent Person for their Audit Committee and draft recommendations of the Redmond Review into the Oversight of Local Audit and the Transparency of Local Authority Financial Reporting, has made a large number of recommendations to improve audit related activities at local authorities.

1.3	In his report Redmond recommends that :- ‘Independent Members should be recruited to Audit Committees, with the aim of bringing in specialist, technical knowledge to support the other elected committee members’. The Council’s Internal Audit Partnership – Devon Audit Partnership (DAP) recognised the challenge for councils and were aware of a number of Partners that had tried to recruit such independent members but had been unsuccessful. DAP recognised that if the Redmond recommendations become a requirement then there was the possibility that 8 districts, 2 unitaries and 1 County Council, plus Fire, Police and National Parks in the Devon area would all be seeking such independent members – potentially competing against one another in a very small pool.

1.4	DAP sought to understand from partners what was currently permitted under current regulations / constitution in terms of Independent Persons. However this work highlighted that partners were in “different places” with regards to permitting independent membership on committees, and if such attendance should be financially recompensed or not. DAP have decided to wait until CIPFA or the National Audit Office issues specific instruction before they pursue the idea of a pool of Independent Person further.

1.5	As a result the Audit Committee are still seeking an Independent Person with the next option to entice candidates being financial recompense. The Independent Renumeration Panel have been consulted and consider £500 per annum to be reasonable and in line with other local authorities.

2.	Options under consideration

2.1	Do nothing and wait to see if the recommendations set out in the Redmond Review are enacted by the Government. This option was discounted due to members desire to appoint an Independent Person in line with what is considered to be good practice by CIPFA.

2.2	Readvertise the position without financial recompense. This option was discounted due to two failed attempts are recruiting on a voluntary basis.

3.	Financial Opportunities and Implications

3.1	There will be a financial implication as the renumeration will have to be met from the existing Members Allowance Budget.

4.	Legal Implications

4.1	None

5.	Engagement and Consultation

5.1	The Independent Renumeration Panel have been consulted.

6.	Purchasing or Hiring of Goods and/or Services

6.1	Not applicable

7.	Tackling Climate Change

7.1	Not applicable

7.2

8.	Associated Risks

8.1	If the Council was unable to recruit to the position the risk remains that it is not following best practice.

9.	Equality Impacts - Identify the potential positive and negative impacts on specific groups

Positive Impact	Negative Impact & Mitigating Actions	Neutral Impact
Older or younger people	There is no differential impact.
People with caring Responsibilities	There is no differential impact.
People with a disability	There is no differential impact.
Women or men	There is no differential impact.
People who are black or from a minority ethnic background (BME) (Please note Gypsies / Roma are within this community)	There is no differential impact.
Religion or belief (including lack of belief)	There is no differential impact.
People who are lesbian, gay or bisexual	There is no differential impact.
People who are transgendered	There is no differential impact.
People who are in a marriage or civil partnership	There is no differential impact.
Women who are pregnant / on maternity leave	There is no differential impact.
Socio-economic impacts (Including impact on child poverty issues and deprivation)	There is no differential impact.
Public Health impacts (How will your proposal impact on the general health of the population of Torbay)	There is no differential impact.

10.	Cumulative Council Impact

10.1	None

11.	Cumulative Community Impacts

11.1	None