Discussion:
The Head of Internal Audit and
Counter Fraud Shared Service introduced the report which detailed
the performance of the service against the annual work plan for
2021/22 and brought together the three updates that were presented
to the Committee during the year as well as additional information
on work that had been completed since the last update.
Members then raised
a number of questions and comments which
included:
The team was thanked for all
their hard work over the year.
- Resources – it was asked if
there were sufficient resources within the team as the team’s
resources has been deployed during the Pandemic to different parts
of the service and it was noted that 72% of implementations against
actions could be as a result of resource
issues. The officer confirmed that resources had not been diverted
to other parts of the service in the last year. The audit team
had no involvement in the 72%
implementation against actions as actions identified by reviews
were the responsibility of the service to take action to improve
their controls. The percentage if taken just as a number would
appear low but should be taken in context of numbers implemented
against the number outstanding.
- Outstanding
Actions – in response to a question
on what could be done by the Committee to increase awareness of
outstanding actions and the need to prioritise, the officer said
that the Committee had the power to request services to attend a
meeting to provide explanations where required. Updates were given
by departments as to the reasons for delays and to request
extensions. It was important to remember that Covid had a
significant impact on ability to deliver by agreed
dates.
- Contracts and
Procurement-in response to a question on
adding a review of Children’s services contracts to planned
audit work review, the officer said that there was already in place
a scheduled review of Children’s Commissioning that was
planned for this year. A refresh of the risk assessment would take
place in July to set the plan for the second half of the year and
would be brought before the Committee in September. Details of
Education and Children’s commissioning reviews could be
factored into that report.
The
Chief Operating Officer added that additional resource for
commissioning in SEN and Education had been factored into the
2022/23 budget.
- Norse
- in response to questions around the waste
management contract, why the contract had not been signed despite
them being given the contract in 2019 with some key performance
measures not reported, the officer said that when the review was
conducted and reports agreed with the client for publication, there
was an action plan in place for date of completion of works to
complete the action. That date had only just elapsed, and this was
the reason why there was no update in the report regarding
this.
The
Chief Operating officer added at the point the audit was conducted,
the target date agreed was 31 March 2022 which in terms of the
audit action plan had only just elapsed. A commitment was made for
a briefing to be obtained from the Head of Service as to what the
issues were that had led to the delays.
The
officer reminded Members that the Audit Team had no involvement in the management of the contract
as the review was to look into the contract management arrangements
and provide an opinion.
Members asked for representation at a future meeting of relevant
officers to attend a future meeting to provide clarity purely on
the information that had been presented in the report. The Chair
agreed this action.
The
team was thanked for the work completed on the Medway Tests
audit.
Children’s Commissioning and Children’s Improvement
would both be part of audit process and efforts of the team were
welcomed.
- Looked After
Children (LAC) - it was asked in terms of
LAC children’s regular savings, what actions and measures
were in place to recoup the monies that had been paid directly to
foster carers. The officer said the business change team was
involved in work for the Council to pay the saving directly into
the accounts of LAC. Controls were being put in place to ensure
savings monies would not be paid to foster carers in the future
with more work to be done to ascertain if there were any monies to
be recouped.
- Housing
Infrastructure Fund (HIF) - it was
commented that clarification was needed on the HIF projects terms
of reference as raised at Regeneration Culture and Environment
Overview and Scrutiny Committee, around the Councils liability in
the instance that the project was delayed. It was important to
ensure that adequate monitoring of the project was in
place.
- Deferred
Audit - it was noted that some audits
that has been deferred in 2021/22 had not been picked up in 2022/23
plans. The officer said that they were not included for various
reasons, other audits may have been prioritised in terms of risk.
The audit plans for the second half of the year would be reviewed
in July and it would be decided what audits needed to be
addressed.
Decision:
- The Committee noted the work
undertaken by the Internal Audit and Counter Fraud Shared Service
for Medway during 2021-22 in providing an effective service to the
Council.
- The Committee considered and agreed
to support the opinion of the Council’s internal control
environment provided by the Head of Internal Audit and Counter
Fraud Shared Service, as set out in Section 4 of Appendix 1, that
Medway Council’s risk management, system of internal control,
and framework of governance, were sufficient and effective, and
contributed to the proper, economic, efficient, and effective use
of resources in achieving the council’s objectives.