Agenda item

To receive a progress report of internal audit work for 2015/16.

(Report attached)

The Committee considered the Internal Audit Progress Report.  The report presented Members with progress on internal audit work for 2015/16.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the audit reports which had been issued/completed since the previous progress report on 24th September 2015, together with audit work which was currently ongoing.  Summary reports for ongoing audits would be referred to future meetings of the Committee in the usual manner, and Officers advised that there were no exceptions to report to Members.  Appendix 4 to the report set out the medium and high risk priorities and recommendations which had arisen in relation to competed audits, with there being no high risk recommendations on this occasion.

Mr Jones queried the addition of two Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the period 1st April to 31st December 2015 at Appendix 2 to the report, which he noted had not been approved by the Committee and had not appeared in the previous progress report.  Officers explained that the additional KPIs had recently been requested at, and agreed by, the Client Officer Group of the Worcestershire Internal Audit Shared Service (WIASS).  Officers attended the Client Officer Group, along with representatives of the other local authorities and organisations covered by the WIASS, and it had been agreed that the additional KPIs would be taken to all relevant Committees/reporting bodies as a matter of course. 

Mr Jones queried the monitoring and control processes for the additional KPIs and whether there was a percentage figure, which if performance fell below would represent a significant drop.  If such a figure did not exist Mr Jones queried whether the Client Officer Group could agree a figure for this for monitoring purposes.  Officers agreed to discuss this issue with Mr Jones outside of the meeting, and commented that Members needed to be mindful of the partnership that existed with the WIASS under the wider shared service arrangements.

A question was raised by the external auditor as to the relevance of the ‘Critical Review’ based audits as no assurance level was given to these and they did not form part of the audit plan.  Officers responded that there was not a set percentage of the plan which was Critical Review based, and that owing to the internal audit environment it was necessary to constantly review the work which was being undertaken and to make a judgement on that work to ensure that value was being added as a result of this, which sometimes meant that Critical Review work was more appropriate than formal audit work.  Officers advised that a relatively small amount of time was spent on Critical Review audits.  In order for Members to ascertain the levels of formal audit and Critical Review work which was being undertaken, Officers agreed to include the percentage amounts of each (i.e. where assurance levels were and were not being given) in future reports.

A Member queried what appeared to be lack of action on two high priority recommendations in relation to fees and charges and income reconciliation for Land Charges under the Planned Follow Ups at Appendix 3 of the report.  Officers agreed to check with the relevant Head of Service in this regard and to report back to Members on this.  Under the same section, a Member queried the reason for the delay in relation to the separation of duties in the cashing-up process at Forge Mill Museum, which Officers also agreed to check with the relevant Head of Service and report back to Members on.

RESOLVED that

subject to the required Officer follow-up action as detailed in the preamble above, the report be noted.