Local democracy

Agenda item

INTERNAL AUDIT ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18

The Assistant Director, Finance and Procurement will submit Document “R” which reviews the service Internal Audit has provided to the Council during the municipal year 2017/18.

 

Recommended-

 

That the work carried out by Internal Audit during 2017/18 be recognised and supported.

 

                                                            (Mark St Romaine – 01274 432888)

Minutes:

The Assistant Director, Finance and Procurement submitted Document “R” which reviewed the service Internal Audit had provided to the Council during the municipal year 2017/18.

 

Members were advised of the following:-

 

·         Internal Audit completed 81% of the 2017/18 audit plan which, was below the target of 90%. Whilst a proportion of the shortfall related to a drop in the resources available, the main reason for the percentage completed was the level of unplanned audit work required.

 

·         Internal Audit’s Client satisfaction identified that 100% of the respondents said that the “recommendations were useful and realistic” and believed that the audit was “of benefit to management.”

 

·         99% of all high priority recommendations made from the work undertaken were accepted by management.  

 

It was reported that all Internal Audit assignments resulted in an Audit Report which identified the audit coverage, findings from the audit, risks arising from identified control weaknesses and prioritised audit recommendations. In 2017/18 a total of 74 reports were issued, which was a decrease on the 82 reports issued in 2016/17.  

Members were informed that the reports issued in 2017/18 recorded that the percentage of controls satisfied was 74%, a decrease of 3% on the 77% satisfied in 2016/17, but was consistent with the five year average of 74% of controls satisfied. As in 2016/17 the service continued to focus on and require responses only in relation to high priority recommendations.

Members were informed that all vacant posts in the service had now been filled.

It was reported that significant concerns were highlighted at paragraph 2.7. of the report.

Members were informed that Internal Audit followed up its audit work which was detailed in paragraph 2.8.

Members commented on the following:

·         In terms of the work being undertaken by Internal Audit  such as mobile telephony (detailed in paragraph 2.6) were there other areas the Council could save money?

·         Were there any savings in relation to establishing an effective working relationship between Internal and External Audit detailed in paragraph 1.3. of the report.

·         Why did some Audit opinions at Appendix A state not applicable?

·         What happened to high priority recommendations that were not implemented by the service after they had been followed up by Internal Audit?

·         In relation to significant concerns and the high priority recommendations relating to deprivation of liberty when will the issues relating to this be resolved? Concerned that 32% of follow up audits had not been completed; it also seemed the issues related to the same areas such as Health and Wellbeing and Children’s Services.

·         Expected that when internal audit highlighted significant concerns following an audit the Director would be monitoring the situation and looking at why certain audit recommendations were not being completed.

·         Where there was a significant concern and the issue had been outstanding for some time, the service had been given plenty of opportunity to address the concerns raised by Internal Audit,  Senior Managers should be doing more to address the outstanding high priority recommendations.

In response to Members questions it was reported that:

·         Downsizing in terms of reduction in staff etc and the savings that brought  was an area that needed looking at.

·         Internal and External Audit established an effective working relationship, however developing a framework for co-operation in the planning, conduct and reporting of work did not produce any additional savings as it was a DCLG and Audit requirement.

·         Not Applicable was applied as Internal Audit could not give an opinion on a particular system; if Internal Audit had identified a critical recommendation then there would be an opinion stated in the table at Appendix A.

·         Internal Audit had a follow up process which involved flagging up issues with the Service Managers and the Strategic Director who were Members of CMT but Internal Audit did not report outstanding high priority recommendations direct to CMT.

The Strategic Director, Corporate Services reported that she would raise the issue in relation to outstanding recommendations with the  Corporate Management Team.

 

Resolved-

 

That the work carried out by Internal Audit during 2017/18 be recognised and supported.

 

                                                           

Supporting documents: