Agenda item

The Committee received the Audit Completion Report of the External Auditor relating to the year ended 31 March 2023 which provided a summary of audit conclusions (for copy see file of minutes).

C Waddell, Mazars presented the headlines within the report.  He confirmed that there had been no major changes from last year and the Audit in previous years had given assurance over the arrangements for securing value for money.   Some weaknesses had been identified and recommendations given in the report, alongside the management responses.

Consideration had been raised with members of the public at a high level and the audit outcome was an unqualified opinion.  He explained that in auditing terms unqualified was as good as it got. 

The audit had identified future challenges. He also noted that the Audit was substantially complete but could not be fully signed off and the certificate issued until the National Audit Office had considered which councils they would use as sample components to analyse files. He was unsure if Durham would be picked as they were last picked in 2021 but they tended to pick the larger councils. 

He mentioned that a local resident had raised an issue during the audit but it was deemed that the issue raised (linked to a planning application) was not relevant to the financial statements.

He gave reassurances that Durham County Council had produced good quality accounts in a timely manner with good quality working papers and that it was unfortunate that the September deadline for completion of the audit had been missed.  Durham County Council were in the minority of councils nationally to have their accounts signed off by the end of November and had only been held up by additional work that had been carried out on pensions as they were one of the few councils that had their own pension fund and did not rely on other firms for assurances.

Mr I Rudd referred to page 73 of the report in section 5 that referred to issues with the related parties transaction forms and asked why some of these forms were missing.

M Outterside, Mazars confirmed that the forms had eventually been received but after the accounts had been finalised.

P Darby clarified that the related parties transaction forms from Members were asked for well in advance.  Democratic Services chased them up to ensure they were received. Everything was done to try to ensure they were received but Officer’s relied on Members to complete them.  In previous years there were a small number missing and could not be received from members that did not return following the election which were difficult to chase up. 

Mr I Rudd indicated to the adjusted misstatements item 2 for the loss of disposal of £48,000 and questioned if this was to do with the disposal of the HQ building at the sands that was sold to the University.

P Darby confirmed that it was.  Durham County Council had constructed the building that would have been viewed as an asset on the balance sheet therefore as it was disposed of it was then required to be taken out.

M Outterside, Mazars stated that there was nothing wrong with the number but just had to reflect this on the face of it.

Mr I Rudd also queried the £6.5 million disposal monies.

P Darby clarified that this money was surplus on the disposal that was a revaluation adjustment and moved accordingly.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.