Agenda item

The Interim Head of Audit & Risk introduced the report, which summarised progress on delivering the internal audit plan since the last Audit Panel report, performance of the Internal Audit contractor, and implementation of internal audit recommendations. Panel members noted that 96% of the recommendations have been implemented. Audit Panel was informed that improvements have been made and the number of overdue recommendations have come down, as constant reminders were being sent out. It was noted that the Principal Accountant was present at the meeting. He updated members on the current position with VAT. The Chair commented that the recommendations were significantly overdue, and that officers should ensure that in future these recommendations are implemented on time. Councillor Mallory added that he could understand that the re-organisation within a section as a result of funding cuts, may have contributed to delays.

Panel members noted that the Head of Resources, CYP sent his apologies for not attending the meeting. The Interim Head of Audit & Risk read out the Children & Young People (CYP) Directorate’s update on their outstanding recommendations. The Chair had some questions, and the interim Head of Audit & Risk suggested that the Head of Resources, CYP could be invited back to the Panel’s meeting in November. The Chair added that children data could become an issue in future, and Headteachers would need to be made aware of this.

David Webb asked what the Audit Panel could do if there was a delay in Headteachers following up their recommendations. The Interim Head of Audit & Risk informed members that influence over Headteachers would be the responsibility of the school’s Board of Governors, especially the Chair of the Board.

Panel members asked why the Resources Directorate’s target dates for operational risk registers have been changed twice, and Community Mental Health target date changed 7 times. The Interim Head of Audit & Risk said that for the risk recommendation this was partly because of issues around training.  It was noted that Lewisham has a specific system and an e-learning course is being documented and would be finalised in November/December.  In respect of the SLAM audit this recommendation will be kept open and a new audit scheduled for this area in early 2013 to revisit the controls in place given the delays in management being able to conclude the agreed actions.

It was noted that following an update from the Head of Information Management & Technology on Cyber Security, the majority of recommendations have now been addressed, and others were being resolved. The Chair requested an update at the next Audit Panel meeting.

The Chair stated that the reporting tables were very useful, especially when cross referenced with the Risk Register. He added that it would be useful to bring back the tables when the Risk Register is being considered in March.

In respect of the continuous auditing reports being introduced, David Webb asked whether Panel members were convinced that there was management capacity to use all the information that would be generated.  The Interim Head of Audit & Risk stated that it was management responsibility to ensure the process was being adopted, monitor the trend and see if there were exceptions.  The Head of Business Management and Service Support said that they were having robust conversation with internal audit, they were aware of the capacity risk, and would ensure that the right information was being generated.

Richard King asked why two medium recommendations were not agreed by management, and was told that a cost benefit analysis was done before the decision was taken. The Director of Internal Audit commented that they would not make a recommendation unless they thought it would be beneficial. 

In respect of the superseded recommendations, Mr King asked whether the Public Transparency Board – Public Data have now being completed. It was noted that it has been implemented and spending data published. Richard King then asked why some recommendations were made if they would not improve service delivery, noting that the customer involvement strategy recommendation was discussed during the section’s restructuring, and the team has now been dissolved. Some of the recommendations discussed and agreed were done by people no longer working in the section, and the environment service had gone through reorganisation.

Mr Webb commented that the performance of the contractor was still substantially behind the agreed deadline. The Chair asked why the contractor would set a target that could not be met. The Director of Internal Audit said that if they set a lower target they still might not meet it, and because they were trying to improve their performance level, a higher target was necessary. He added that their performance had improved from last year.  The Head of Business Management and Service Support stated that there was a balance to be struck, and the Council still maintained the right to hold contractors to account.  Following a robust discussion on the performance a higher target was deemed beneficial. 

The Interim Head of Audit said that the Council have received a rebased audit plan from the contractor to deliver all the commissioned 2012/13 work by April 13.  As a result future updates would be changed, and monitoring undertaken on these revised targets. The Chair said this would be useful.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.