Agenda item

Members of the Committee heard from the Internal Auditor who presented the report. A progress report was presented to update Committee Members on the completion of the 2024-25 plan, the status of the 2025-26 plan, and the finalised reports since the last Committee meeting in April 2025. It was confirmed that the 2024-25 plan had been fully completed, with two final reports included in the progress report, and specific questions regarding the wider document were invited.

It was reported that all audits for the 2025-26 plan had been scheduled with the relevant teams, except for the IT audit. It was explained that their IT team was liaising with the authority to secure a booking, and the plan remained on schedule. The Auditor confirmed that key performance indicators were on track, including the timely turnaround of draft and final reports.

The Auditor drew attention to the Combined Assurance report summarised in the report but also included as a standalone item on the agenda. It was clarified that this was not a conventional Internal Audit report but a facilitated discussion with management regarding the assurance map in place. It was highlighted that no high-risk areas had identified, reductions in amber-rated risks were observed, and green-rated risks had increased, indicating an overall improvement in the authority’s risk profile.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Auditor stated that the IT audit was solely applicable to West Lindsey, and not a joint exercise with North Kesteven. The Chairman noted that a fully green assurance rating would be concerning, as continuous improvement was the objective.

A Member of the Committee enquired about the classification of complaints procedure risks. In response, the Monitoring Officer acknowledged the volume and complexity of external complaints and outlined the ongoing review of procedures. It was confirmed that adjustments to timescales were being considered to aid efficient complaint handling whilst maintaining fairness.

The Chairman discussed expectation of response times, particularly at the parish level. It was observed that many parish councils expected unrealistically fast response times and greater communication was suggested to clarify realistic response times. The Monitoring Officer responded noting that the Chairman’s suggestion would be considered. It was highlighted that the audit had been a valuable process, and it was confirmed that adaptations to the complaints policy were being made in line with audit recommendations.

A Member of the Committee enquired about the ownership of the Saxilby footbridge. The Chief Executive responded, stating that although the Council had undertaken substantial repair and renovation work, formal ownership had not been confirmed. It was explained that responsibility for the repair had been accepted by the Council, following extensive discussions involving the Rivers and Canals Trust, Lincolnshire County Council, the local parish council, and the railway authorities. It remained the Council’s view that future stewardship of the bridge would be best placed with the Rivers and Canals Trust, though it was anticipated that further major maintenance would not be required for several decades.

In response to the Chief Executive’s comments, Cllr Brockway commended the Council’s role in delivering a significant programme of works on the bridge. The investment was described as having had a positive effect on the village, improving accessibility and enhancing local amenities.

A Member of the Committee expressed concern that ongoing organisational changes, including the replacement of Auditors and adjustments to staffing arrangements, could potentially disrupt the stability necessary to meet the Council’s key performance indicators (KPIs). The uncertainty surrounding Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) was also noted as a factor that might destabilise existing structures. A request was made, reiterated by the Chairman, for Auditors and the Committee to remain vigilant in monitoring performance metrics, ensuring that any deviations from expected standards were promptly addressed.

The Auditor then directed the Committee’s attention to the Follow-Up Internal Audit Report where the follow-up report on previously agreed management actions was presented. It was stated that the purpose of the follow-up was to confirm the implementation of actions by their respective due dates, as set in the final report. A total of 27 management actions were reviewed, comprising eight medium-priority and 19 low-priority items, with none classified as high priority. Of these, it was noted that 16 actions had been fully implemented and were considered resolved. Two actions had been partially implemented, with further work required before they could be signed off. The Auditor explained that nine actions remained outstanding, with no action taken to address them. While the overall opinion remained positive with reasonable assurance, the outstanding items were noted as requiring further attention.

In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Auditor confirmed that the Management Team had not disagreed with the recommendations but that various factors, including resource constraints and competing priorities, had contributed to the delay. Of the nine outstanding actions, no action had yet been taken, while the two partially implemented actions had seen progress but required further work.

The Chairman requested that a written response be provided at a later date, detailing reasons for the outstanding actions. In response, the Monitoring Officer provided an update on three key areas: the complaints regime for standards complaints, where work was ongoing and expected to be completed by 30 June 2025; the staff appraisals policy, which was undergoing revision and due for completion by September 2025; and the risk management strategy, where the Management Team was conducting a thorough review in light of wider Council activities.

Concern was expressed by Members of the Committee over the accumulation of outstanding audit actions. In response, the Chief Executive suggested reinstating a management report as part of quarterly Internal Audit updates, detailing any outstanding actions beyond their expected implementation dates. This report would provide rationale for delays and outline whether adjustments to implementation dates were required. The proposal received support, and its inclusion in future reports was supported.

The Auditor continued the presentation, introducing a separate item on the agenda, the Internal Audit Annual Report, which summarised the audit work completed for 2024-25, and provided an overall opinion on risk management, governance, and the overall control framework. It was explained that overall, an amber rating had been assigned, indicating a generally adequate and effective control framework with some areas identified for improvement. These areas for improvement were based on agreed management actions derived from individual audit reviews.

Continuing the presentation, the Auditor stated that a total of eight assurance reviews had been undertaken during the year, with three receiving the highest rating of substantial assurance, while five were rated as reasonable. Two follow-up reviews had also been conducted, both of which had indicated reasonable progress in implementing recommendations.

As the Auditor had referred to several Internal Audit items on the agenda throughout the presentation, the Chairman proposed to take the vote on all three Internal Audit papers together.

The Committee was directed back to the Combined Assurance Report. It was confirmed that the report had been summarised earlier during the current item, and included a progress update along with two summary reports and two full reports. Members were invited to raise any specific questions.

Concern was expressed by a Member of the Committee regarding the phrasing of the risk related to customer service, which stated that "the quality of services do not meet customer expectations”, with a recommendation made to amend the wording to "realistic customer expectations", to acknowledge that some expectations might be unattainable and beyond the Council’s control. Consideration of the suggested revision was agreed by the Chief Executive.

A question was raised from a Member of the Committee regarding the impact of extreme weather. Assurances were provided by the Chief Executive that flood preparedness remained a priority, with Member and Officer flood and drainage groups continuing to operate. Although Lincolnshire County Council’s Flood and Water Committee had been disbanded, it was stated that the Council remained in contact with the relevant Officers, ensuring that existing flood management activities continued. It was reaffirmed that the focus was on avoiding unpreparedness for extreme weather rather than structural governance changes. The Chairman reiterated the importance of proactivity in this area, noting that it was potentially an area of discussion for one of the Council’s policy Committees.

Clarification was sought regarding the removal of the Council's car parking officer, following the decision not to renew the position as of 31 March 2025. A response was provided from the S151 Officer confirming that discussions were ongoing to determine an appropriate level of resources for the service. No disruption to public services was anticipated, and a full process review had been commissioned, with an updated car park strategy scheduled for later in the year.

The Committee discussed the importance of partnership working, with a question raised by a Committee Member as to how the Council could identify deficiencies in existing partnerships, given that Auditors did not necessarily review these arrangements. In response, the Chief Executive emphasised the importance of defining partnerships, highlighting the varying structures and audit processes applicable to different types. It was explained that collective decisions made at the county level were noted as being implemented individually by respective authorities, with audits assessing their integration into local services rather than the partnership itself. Examples of other partnerships were provided, including wellbeing services contracts, which were subject to audits and monitoring.

A Member of the Committee raised concerns regarding the audit assurance provided for partnerships involving procurement and legal services. In response, the Chief Executive explained that the External Audit process covered value-for-money assessments for legal and procurement activities. It was stated that previous audits of procurement had identified concerns that continue to be addressed. It was clarified that the financial arrangements of such partnerships were subject to routine audits, ensuring oversight of expenditure and compliance with organisational controls.

The Chief Executive highlighted formal partnerships with other authorities, such as the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee. It was noted that one of the partnered authorities, North Kesteven District Council, currently responsible for chairing the Committee, would be subject to a similar regime of internal and external audits, although a local audit may be requested. The Chairman noted that reliance on reports from other authorities did not necessarily provide full visibility, and mechanisms for reviewing external partnerships should be strengthened. The Chairman concluded that further consideration should be given to the matter at a future meeting, and the importance of addressing such questions as part of the Committee's responsibilities was reaffirmed.

The Chairman proceeded to review the reports presented and the accompanying recommendations.

Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman took the vote, and it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the Audit Follow up report Visit 2 and the Annual progress report be endorsed.