Agenda item

The Chief Auditor introduced the report, in its new format, the purpose of which is to present recommendations to address weaknesses identified in audit jobs.  The purpose of the recommendations is to improve the control environment of service provision.  The report tracks implementation of historic (2014/15 and 2015/16) and current recommendations by respective managers.

The Committee was reminded that the report is based on strengths and weaknesses; weaknesses are classed as significant, moderate or less significant.

It was reported that for 2014/15, 96% of audit recommendations were agreed by operational managers and in 2015/16, 97% were agreed.  To ensure that the recommendations have been implemented, further work is undertaken.  When there has been an unfavourable audit opinion, assurances are given to Committee that a review audit will be carried out and an update provided.  For other opinions, there are insufficient resources to assure that all recommendations have been implemented, so checks are made on a sample basis.  However, there is reliance on operational managers to provide evidence of implementation e.g. an action plan.

An update was provided, in relation to car park income, that 11 recommendations were implemented and 9 not implemented.  An updated version of the appendices will be circulated to Committee Members following the meeting.

It was explained that, overall, 67% of recommendations have been implemented, 18% not implemented, 12% part implemented and 4 % where managers have accepted the risk and not implemented the recommendation.  The latter figure is of concern and a revisit will be arranged.  If unsatisfactory, the Head of Service will be made aware of that issue.

Committee Members were guided through the report appendices.

A Member questioned the figures regarding car park income noting that 9 recommendations were not implemented.  In response it was explained that there had been a concern and a recommendation agreed with the operational manager.  However, implementation was conditional on the car park policy being updated.  The policy has now been updated and the recommendations can be implemented.  It was agreed to arrange for the operational manager to attend a meeting to reassure the Committee, explain what has been done and timescales accordingly.  The Chair will write to the Head of Service.

A query was raised about measures taken in the Children and Young People’s Directorate and it was agreed that the Chief Officer will be asked to provide information on the measures taken or planned to address the audit opinions and a further report will be made available at the next meeting.

The concept of risk being accepted by managers but with no action taken to mitigate the risk was queried.  It was explained that there can be various reasons for non-implementation such as convenience or lack of resource, and it was confirmed that better follow up is needed in these circumstances.  If a significant weakness is identified, that matter should then be raised with the Head of Service.

A Member questioned, in the context of a school, if there were ever interim measures required prior to implementation.  It was explained that an audit is undertaken against a pre-prepared programme of expected controls to identify what is in place and to determine strengths and weaknesses.  A draft report and action plan is prepared and discussed with the Headteacher and School Administrator for factual accuracy.  The Headteacher’s comments would be incorporated in the report then the audit recommendation would be added and the agreement of the Headteacher sought.  If the opinion was unfavourable, as agreed with Audit Committee, the school would be revisited within 6-12 months to check upon implementation.

If nothing has been implemented after two unsatisfactory audit opinions, this would be reported back to Audit Committee through quarterly update reports and the option of calling in the Headteacher to attend an Audit Committee meeting would be considered.