Agenda item

The Risk Manager presented the report. He referred to the Audit and Risk Dashboard for the second quarter of 2014/2015 and noted that only 39% of planned work had been completed. This was because of various factors as detailed in paragraph 4.3 of the report. Critical/high risk recommendations implemented stood at 67%. This figure would have been higher had 2 high risk recommendations been implemented by June, but there had been delays as detailed in paragraph 4.6. Management had now provided assurance that these recommendations would be implemented. Referring to Appendix 2, he said that of the 27 audits completed, only 3 were rated as less than satisfactory; these were detailed in paragraph 4.5 of the report. There would be a follow up for IT software licensing in August 2015 and for Parks and Green Spaces in March 2015. One of the findings in respect of Parks and Green Spaces was that the Council’s tree stock was not being inspected in line with the timescales adopted by the service. In fact it was not possible for the service to comply with these timescales within current resources, and they were reprioritising the inspection regime according to risk level.

A Member said that if Parks and Green Spaces did not have enough people to inspect all trees, the effect of the audit might be that they diverted resources to tree inspection from other areas of the service, which might then suffer. The Risk Manager replied that the service had its own methods for assessing risk and priorities and it was up to the professionals in the service to do that. What the audit team had told them was that they could not carry out their current inspection regime within current resources.

In response to a question from a Member, the Risk Manager informed the Committee that no new investigations had been launched in response to information from whistle blowers since April.

A Member asked why 17 recommendations had been made in respect of Payroll and only 11 had been implemented. The Risk Manager replied that it was important that recommendations relating to the main control systems were implemented. The Chair said that if there was resistance to implementing any audit recommendations the Committee would be expected to be informed about it.

A Member noted the large number of recommendations made by some audit reports and wondered whether the number of recommendations made was as much an indicator of things going wrong as the risk level of the recommendations. Mr Morris took up this point, and noted that for IT, a business-critical area, 25 recommendations were made. The Risk Manager explained that many of the recommendations related to the former Council offices at Riverside in Keynsham, where servers had been located. These problems had been resolved by the relocation to the new Civic Centre in Keynsham. Replying to a Member, the Divisional Director Audit and Risk said that there was no connection between the number of IT recommendations and the fact that IT services and been brought back in house. He went on to say that he had felt uncomfortable about the number of recommendations being made in some cases. In the initial phase of joint working with North Somerset and the South West Audit Partnership (SWAP) these organisations had used their own report formats and had followed different approaches, which would all eventually contribute to better ways of working. One thing that had to be reviewed was whether less important recommendations should appear in the final audit report.

Mr Morris asked about the SWAP assurance levels given in Appendix 2. The Risk Manager replied that these were the same as the Council’s.

The Divisional Director Audit and Risk drew attention to information on resources and partnership development given in paragraphs 4.9-4.14 of the report. Decisions for the establishment of a fully integrated partnership between B&NES and North Somerset would be taken by the Executive of North Somerset on 9 December and by a B&NES Cabinet Member shortly. North Somerset staff would transfer to B&NES under TUPE arrangements and it was anticipated that other organisations would join the partnership over the next 2-3 years. He would provide a fuller briefing on how the new arrangements would work at the next meeting. It was anticipated that the partnership would result in a 5% cost reduction for both councils in its first year.

In response to a question from a Member, the Divisional Director Audit and Risk confirmed that North Somerset had the same external auditors as B&NES, though the personnel involved were different. This did aid communications to some extent, but the important thing was that the two councils would be working to the same framework.

The Independent Member referred to the public sector joint working arrangements that were being implemented in Hertfordshire and suggested that the Council might be able to learn from these.

RESOLVED to note progress made against the Internal Audit Plan for 2014/15.