Agenda item

Purpose: The Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS) require the Audit Manager to make a formal annual report to those charged with governance within the Council.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 8) concerning the Internal Audit Annual Assurance Report 2020/21.

Julie Gillhespey introduced the report. She noted that the report’s conclusion stated that the Control Framework was still robust and effective, and noted the large number of areas which were marked as ‘satisfactory’. A number of ‘weak’ opinions had been reported to Committee and since worked on. Grounds Contract Management had been ‘very weak’, and while this had not been improved to ‘satisfactory’ there had been improvement. Additionally, there were three follow-up reports which had returned unsatisfactory reports, and had been reported to the Committee and followed up on.

Joseph Holmes noted that Capital Strategy Group had seen reports on available contributions and whether they were being managed effectively.

Bryan Lyttle noted that there was a new government requirement to report back on Section 106 and CIL by the December of each year. The Council had been successful on that deadline and the report was published. Section 106 agreements had gone down from 106 in 2013/14 to just eleven in the previous year, and one this year. Most information requests were being managed through the Freedom of Information Act, which were free of charge.

Councillor Jeff Beck noted that the Maintenance Contract was marked as ‘very weak’, and that it was a joint contract between West Berkshire Council, Newbury Town Council and an external contractor. He asked why this was suddenly ‘very weak’. Julie Gillhespey noted that the report was not ‘out of the blue’, as there had been issues throughout, due to the failure to establish a database. An agreement had been reached on actions to improve on the audit, and these were promising.

Councillor Tony Linden noted that the Development and Planning Capital Programme Board had been marked as ‘weak’, and asked what actions would be taken. Julie Gillhespey stated that the Committee could request a second stage follow-up, but that the main issue, reports going to the Capital Strategy Group, had been addressed by Joseph Holmes and acted on.

Councillor Claire Rowles asked for reassurance that the Council was able to benchmark themselves against other authorities, and that the Audit Team was following the statutory requirement to be externally audited. Julie Gillhespey responded that the external assessment was a benchmark, as it was comparing the Council with other local authorities. The audit reports were additionally externally audited, and that would have raised any issues. Councillor Rowles asked how an external audit worked. Julie Gillhespey responded that external audits had a set of criteria to work on and that the Council had been marked as fully conforming to the standards set out.

David Southgate noted that in 5.9 there was a mention of a new process being set up in 2018/19, and in 5.21 there was an external audit in March 2018. He asked whether the process was still relevant considering there was a new process. Julie Gillhespey responded that the new process was a risk management process, and was not related to the external audit.

Councillor Rowles asked Bryan Lyttle to clarify his statements on Section 106 and CIL. Bryan Lyttle responded that the government brought in legislation requiring councils to produce reports on Section 106 and CIL spending each December. The Council has issued these reports since 2018.

Councillor Andy Moore noted that Covid-19 related work was marked as something that came in new, and asked for an overview of what that involved. Julie Gillhespey responded that the Council asked for help for business grants and community support, and a range of later grants. Each grant was signed off after a check for fraud. Additionally, there were grants with no sign-off requirement that presented a risk and were checked in order to prevent fraud.

The Chairman noted that there was an 81% score and asked whether this would return to a 90% score. Julie Gillhesey responded that she hoped that it would, although it depended on the level and nature of work, and that the Council should expect between 80% and 90%.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.