Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): I welcome Ms Dorinnia Carville, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and Mr Rodney Allen, the Northern Ireland Audit Office's chief operating officer. I invite you to brief the Committee on the proposed updates to the memorandum of understanding.

Ms Dorinnia Carville (Northern Ireland Audit Office): Thank you, Chair and members, for the invitation to address you today and for the opportunity to have input into the review of the memorandum of understanding. It is fair to say that, whilst it was always the intention to review the MOU frequently, circumstances have meant that this is its first review since 2015, as the Clerk has advised.

I will begin by saying that I have spoken to the Committee before about the review of governance arrangements for the Northern Ireland Audit Office that was undertaken by its predecessor Committee. I reiterate that we fully accept the review's recommendations, and we will work with this Committee or any future Committee on how it so determines to take that forward. We are mindful that a lot of that rested on legislative change, and that was recognised by your predecessor Committee: recommendation 18 of its 2022 report being that, in the absence of that legislative change, to review the current MOU, so that it is:

That is, essentially, what we have done and proposed in working with the Committee Clerk. We have conducted a detailed review of the MOU, proposing changes that reflect updated organisational structures in the Northern Ireland Audit Office and strengthened governance arrangements over that period . We have aligned those changes to best practice in accountability and transparency terms, and we have tried to make the document as succinct and current as possible by directing to our website for the most up-to-date information or removing any references to legislation where we are required to do something by law and it is not necessary to repeat it in the MOU.

If you will indulge me, Chair, I would like to draw members' attention to two particular elements, if I may, where a further review has made us consider that very point of currency. In paragraph 1.4 of the draft updated MOU that you have in front of you, you will see a reference to the Code of Audit Practice in relation to the Local Government Auditor. You will see that it is reviewed every five years and that the current code was published on 1 April 2021. That is an example of how we need to try to keep that as current as possible. At present, the Local Government Auditor has gone through a process of updating that, and it is sitting with the Communities Committee. A new code will, hopefully, take effect on 1 April 2026. In the interests of keeping that current, you may wish to drop that last reference to the current code and leave it that it is updated every five years, which it is.

I also want to point you towards the last paragraph — paragraph 6.1 — in the previous MOU, which committed to having an annual review of the document. We will assist the Committee in reviewing it however often you deem appropriate. In practical terms, an annual review did not happen. The Committee may wish to consider whether an annual review is too onerous or whether an alternative time frame should be put in there. Again, we will assist you in whatever you deem appropriate by way of a review period.

I will pause there, Chair; that is everything from me. I am happy to take any questions that you have for me or Rodney on any of the detail.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): OK; thank you very much for that. Do members have any questions?

Mr Mathison: Does your organisation have a view on how frequently the MOU should be reviewed?

Ms Carville: A review has not been undertaken since 2015, as we know. You could, typically, do it every three to five years, or you could say:

You could leave yourselves with an element of flexibility. To commit to doing it annually probably is quite onerous, and things might not change as frequently as annually. However, we are content with whatever you determine. It might be an idea to leave it at the request of either party, should something significant change.

Rodney, do you want to come in with anything that you are thinking?

Mr Rodney Allen (Northern Ireland Audit Office): Something similar: you could put in something that says that a review should be done periodically during the life of a mandate. That gives a bit more wriggle room, but it is at your discretion.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Would it be too open-ended to say, "review as required"?

Ms Carville: You could do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Or, "as requested by either party".

Mr Allen: You could do that. I am conscious that you will have this situation with other bodies that you oversee. It is about how much of the Committee's business that you want to take up with it. As Dorinnia said, it has not been reviewed since 2015, but I am not saying that you would want to leave it for 10 years.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Nick, do you want to follow up on that?

Mr Mathison: We can take advice from the Clerk and compare it with how we do it with other bodies. My instinct is that something along the lines of, "once a mandate" would be appropriate, with some flexibility perhaps built in, should either party request a review at an earlier juncture should something arise.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): So you have not used up your one allocation. [Laughter.]

Mr Mathison: That is my feeling. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to say that the time could be extended, if there was mutual agreement between the parties that nothing had changed and that it was appropriate not to review it. Building in some flexibility makes sense.

Mr Allen: That is helpful, because it needs to be reviewed, to a certain extent. The Clerk has put in significant work, because it has been so long since it was last reviewed. We would like to see it reviewed occasionally.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): John, do you have any thoughts on it?

Mr Blair: I was about to speak, but then Nick proposed that mandate criterion, which I agree with. Perhaps it could be worded in such a way that it would be reviewed if necessary, or "considered for review" might be a way round that, in agreement between the two parties.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Emma, do you have any thoughts on it, or are you content?

Ms Sheerin: I am content.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Clerk, do you have any thoughts on it?

The Senior Assistant Assembly Clerk: You are suggesting that it be considered for review each mandate or as required. We can work on a line to add to it.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): We are all happy with that, in the meantime. We will see how it reads when we see it on paper.

There are no further questions. Thank you very much. It has been a short briefing for you, but we appreciate your coming to the meeting.