The report recommends the appointment of up to two independent members of the Committee, in line with CIPFA guidance and forthcoming Government legislation.

The Committee is asked to make a recommendation to Full Council.

Andrew Vallance, Head of Finance, reminded Members of the Committee that a number of briefing notes on the Redmond Review had been brought to previous Committee meetings, which highlighted improvements that could be made to the work of audit committees. One of these improvements was to have independent persons on the Committee. CIFPA had published guidance, which said that the Committee should have two independent people, it was expected that this would become legislation shortly. To comply with this guidance, officers were recommending that up to two independent people were appointed to the Committee. As amending the constitution was a power reserved for Full Council, the recommendation would be made by the Committee. The report also contained reference to the delegation of authority to officers to arrange a cross party selection panel to make the appointments to the positions. Consideration also needed to be made on whether an allowance should be paid to the positions.

Councillor Sharpe felt that this was a good thing for the Committee to do. He wanted to understand what the role of the independent people would be on the Committee, for example could they Chair the Committee or were they observers.

Andrew Vallance said that the independent person could Chair the Committee, but that would be for Committee Members to decide. The independent people were not voting members, they would be attending in an advisory capacity only.

Councillor Sharpe said it would be useful for the successful candidate to have knowledge and experience of other council services and work.

The Chair suggested that this would be decided by the selection panel.

Councillor Story commented on the knowledge requirements, it was desirable to have knowledge of some key areas but Councillor Story suggested that this could be essential.

Adele Taylor said that through experience not all candidates would have a knowledge of every area specified in the job description. It was also important that the council did not rule an individual out who could bring wider expertise simply because they had not worked in local government before.

Councillor Story asked if the number of independent people could be increased further.

The Chair felt that this could put people off, the selection panel would be able to determine which candidates would be best to be selected.

Councillor Bond had a slight preference for one independent person to be appointed, given that there were only five Councillors on the Committee. However, if the CIPFA guidance suggested two independent people should be appointed, then there was little choice.

Adele Taylor added that this was why the recommendation in the report had been carefully worded as ‘up to two’ independent people.

Councillor Bond asked that if the arrangement was not working as planned, did the council have the power to remove an appointed independent person from the Committee.

Adele Taylor said that there would be a safety net and the usual process could be followed, if required.

Councillor Bond said that the opportunity to have an individual with local government experience and another individual with experience in a large private company, for example, was an interesting combination and could bring some useful insight to the Committee’s discussions. Councillor Bond commented on the requirement of the independent people to be based in Berkshire, he did not understand why someone from Newbury would be appropriate over someone from Bourne End, which was just over the RBWM border. Councillor Bond wondered what level of allowance should be paid.

Andrew Vallance suggested that in comparison to other local authorities, a proposed allowance could be approximately £500 a year.

Adele Taylor added that the Independent Remuneration Panel would provide a recommendation on what the allowance should be.

Councillor Clark said that the job specification did not detail what skills were needed as part of the role.

Adele Taylor said that this would be part of the recruitment process, it was important to find someone who was interested in helping to shape the work of the Committee.

Councillor Sharpe said that employers now were looking far wider than just the local area, with the use of virtual and hybrid meetings it meant that an individual could be based further away from RBWM but still have a useful input. Councillor Sharpe said that the allowance needed to attract the right level of candidate.

Councillor Hilton said that having two supplementary individuals could provide some useful advice to the Committee. The independent advisors could change the Committee for the better.

The Chair queried the requirement for an interested applicant to not be a Councillor or Parish Councillor in the previous five years.

Andrew Vallance said the reason was for independence, there must not be any political affiliations.

Adele Taylor added that some transactions and partnerships could last longer than a couple of years, which was why the five year limit had been added.

The Chair pointed out that due to the term being four years, it effectively excluded former Councillors for eight years.

The Committee considered the recommendations it would like to make. A preference for a geographical radius over Berkshire was discussed.

Adele Taylor explained that the thinking behind Berkshire being a requirement was the local connection and knowledge of RBWM. At the recruitment stage, a decision could be made on whether a candidate could make a connection with RBWM.

The Chair suggested that the geographical restriction could be removed but there would instead be a desirable requirement to demonstrate an ability to connect with RBWM as an organisation and a place.

Councillor Sharpe said that he did not think that a knowledge of the local area was essential, audit and governance was the same across all local authorities.

The Chair said that a safety net needed to be added in so that the council could make a change if things were not working out as planned. The decision on being one or two independent people should be left to the selection panel. She asked if the allowance should be based on attendance per meeting rather than yearly.

Adele Taylor said that it was normally a set amount, as the number of meetings each year could increase or decrease.

The Chair commented on the internal document for skills as part of the recruitment process.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Audit and Governance Committee recommended to Council:

a)    The appointment of up to two non-voting independent persons to the Audit and Governance Committee for a period of three years, commencing 1st July 2023 and that the Constitution be amended accordingly.

b)    Authority was delegated to the Interim Chief Executive to establish a cross party selection panel, to advertise the positions and make the appointments.

c)    That the Audit and Governance Committee considered that an allowance should be paid to the independent persons.

d)    That the Audit and Governance Committee approved the role profile at Appendix A, subject to the following amendments:

a.    That the geographical restriction be removed but there would instead be a desirable requirement to demonstrate an ability to connect with RBWM as an organisation and a place.

b.    That a ‘safety net’ was implemented so that the council could remove an independent person from the Committee, should the arrangement not be working as planned.

c.    That an internal document was produced as part of the recruitment process, highlighting the skills which would be required for the role.