Agenda item

Note 2: Councillor N Thomas returned to the meeting

The Committee considered a report which detailed the Chief Internal Auditor’s annual assurance opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s internal control environment, risk management and corporate governance arrangements in place during the year. The overall ‘reasonable’ opinion was based on an objective assessment of the framework of governance, risk management and control.

The annual internal audit opinion contributed to the completion of the Annual Governance Statement (AGS). It was specifically scheduled to be considered as part of the Council’s annual review of governance and internal control.

The Committee thanked the team for the comprehensive report and acknowledged the wide scope and large amount of work undertaken, particularly in light of resource challenges and the wider implementation of a new Council. Members were taken through the details of the report and the Chief Auditor summarised how the overall opinion of ‘reasonable’ assurance had been reached. The following key points were highlighted during discussion:

·    Members queried how the opinion could reach ‘substantial’ in the future and heard that it was very difficult to move beyond ‘reasonable’ due to the limited scope of work undertaken within the resources available. Due to the limited resources, there was a need to focus on the key risk areas which meant that assurance could only be provided on those areas which had been reviewed.

·    A Member highlighted the ‘limited’ assurance opinion of the project governance audit undertaken within the Planning, Growth and Sustainability directorate and it was confirmed that the directorate would be asked to discuss this in detail to the Risk Management Group at an upcoming meeting, particularly as large projects, both planned and underway would be affected by rising energy costs and inflation. Lessons had been learnt from the South East Aylesbury Link Road (SEALR) project, and the team had focused a review on the Strategic Transport and Infrastructure service to evaluate a sample of projects and review how they were managed at a granular level, with recommendations made for moving forward. This would feed in to the wider directorate framework.

ACTION: Members of the Risk Management Group to be reminded to raise the issue at their next meeting with the Planning, Growth and Sustainability directorate.

·    In relation to contract management, Members noted that there was reference to procurement and the supplier management group which provided the framework of compliance and best practice, and recognised that that service areas could not be forced to comply. The Committee was advised that the procurement team monitored compliance through the contract management application which the team was actively encouraging appropriate use of and provided regular training on. Non-compliance was escalated through the appropriate channels. Members highlighted that whilst service areas could not be ‘forced’ to comply, this was a staff performance issue and should be addressed through management supervision. It was confirmed that if a staff member deliberately chose not to comply for a prolonged period that there were HR policies to address the behaviour.  It was agreed that an update on compliance percentages would be presented at a future meeting of the Risk Management Group.

ACTION: Members of the Risk Management Group to be reminded to raise the issue at their next meeting where procurement was due to be considered.

·    There was a discrepancy in the number of outstanding actions which related to schools and it was confirmed that 29 of 34 actions was the correct figure.

·    Members heard that linked to the current financial climate, the risk of fraud had increased and there was a large amount of work ongoing to raise awareness of the reporting process. A significant amount of post assurance work had been undertaken on covid grant payments which had led to investigations. The service review had recognised the increased referrals and there was resource being allocated to additional fraud officer roles to carry out investigations.  The whistleblowing process was said to be working well and the team worked closely with colleagues form Legal and HR. The updated policy would be presented to the Committee at its meeting in November.

·    In relation to the Work Smart hybrid working arrangements, the Committee was advised that this had impacted the time taken to complete internal audits. This in particular, affected services such as Adults and Childrens where in previous years an auditor from Mazars would sit alongside someone from the team to go through case files which had been made more difficult as people spent more time away from the office. Moving forward, the team was planning to undertake time intensive audits internally as the systems were known and there were better relationships. It was highlighted that the hybrid arrangements with the fire authority had been positive and worked well. The team would be looking at the wider Better Buckinghamshire programme and whether it was delivering the benefits and savings as expected, this piece of assurance work was planned to be undertaken in close liaison with the Service Director for Major Projects and would be presented to the Committee when completed.

·    There was a discussion on classifications and how those at the lower end of ‘reasonable’ could be given more focus than those at the upper end. A pragmatic approach was undertaken, with the example given of where a system had good controls in place and was stable, this would not be revisited again for a while. CIPFA best practice was to have the four classifications, which was why there were no sub classifications included. The team would give thought as to how to report this in a clearer way moving forward, particularly for those areas on the verge of ‘limited’ assurance.

·    Members were advised that audit and assurance activity was being planned for the new Highways contract due to go live in April 2023. The Risk Management Group would consider this at an upcoming meeting.

ACTION: Members of the Risk Management Group to be reminded to raise the issue at their next meeting with the Communities directorate.

·    An update was requested on the deferred Adult Social Care audit on ‘Interface - Hospital Discharges and Social Care’ and the Committee was advised that due to the change in legislation, the impending process changes resulting from this and the area of the service going through a review, discussions were ongoing with the Service Director around when to undertake the assurance work. It was acknowledged that early involvement from the assurance team was important and discussions would continue as to how the team could look at project management, and proposed changes at an early stage. It was noted that there was good engagement from the service area.

·    The Social Care – Care Leavers audit which had been cancelled was raised, and Members were informed that this was being picked up as part of the review on the work undertaken on progress against the Ofsted inspection visit and finding. This would be reported at November’s Risk Management Group meeting.

·    A Member raised concern over the large number of deferrals, at the request of SLT, an issue which had been raised at previous meetings of this Committee. It was confirmed that there was a more robust challenge system being put in place around this which should become evident this year.

RESOLVED:

That the Chief Auditor’s Annual Internal Audit Report for 2021/22 and the overall ‘reasonable’ opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s governance, risk management and internal control environment for 2021/22 be noted.

Note 3: Councillor A Christensen arrived at 10.54 a.m.