Issue - meetings

Members considered a report which provided an update of progress, by the Audit partner, as at 30 October 20201, against the 2021/2022 annual programme, which had been agreed by the Audit Committee in April 2021.

During the period, four assurance audits had been completed and seven audits were currently in progress, one at the draft stage.

The completed audits being:-

Together 24 – receiving High Assurance

Housing Benefit Subsidy - – receiving High Assurance

Grants Given - – receiving High Assurance

Covid Business Grants - receiving Substantial Assurance

Audits in progress /draft stage were -

ICT Helpdesk – Draft report stage

Local Land Charges – Draft report

Follow Up – Fieldwork stage

Insurance – Fieldwork stage

ICT Network Infrastructure – Fieldwork Stage

Flooding – Terms of Reference

Key Project ERP System – Terms of Reference

Information on each was included within both the body of the report.

The Value for Money Audit had been put on hold in light of the delayed External Audit position, however work had resumed since the writing of the report.

During the quarter the combined assurance work had also commenced.

A total of 12 agreed actions had yet to be implemented (1 High, 10 Medium and 1 low) No overdue actions were outstanding. Appendix 2 provided details of those actions and indicated where extended implementation dates had been agreed.

The Full Audit Plan was set out at within the report and the matters of interest included within the report were also highlighted to the Committee.

Debate ensued and in response to questions, the internal auditor clarified that “broadly on track” in reference to the Together 24 Project, in effect meant the Project was in line with its original business case and projections and / or its revised timeline. The programme had been reviewed in light of the Covid impact, seeing some elements brought on-line sooner than expected. Auditors used this information to assess whether this was acceptable given the context of the organisation to form a judgement.

Members had questioned when the error in the Northgate system was identified and Officers undertook to provide this information outside of the meeting, in the absence of having it to hand.

Regarding grants given and the concerns expressed regarding the Local Councillor Initiative Fund , Auditors advised that LCIF attracted less monitoring due to the materiality of grants and amounts involved, sample monitoring was undertaken.  Match fund grants attracted greater monitoring given the values.  With regard to business grants all applications had gone through national fraud checker, a large amount of due diligence had been undertaken and all information submitted to government.

It was clarified and confirmed that the internal Audit Plan was largely composed by Internal Audit Services, and was not a plan set or driven by Management Team.  Liaison and collaboration did take place. The plan was dynamic and did allow for deviations.  Information was triangulated through every interaction and used to form a picture, which drove the Plan on a risk and material basis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39