Issue - meetings

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 report is required to include an opinion on the effectiveness of the Council’s governance, risk management and internal control frameworks, which in turn supports the Council’s Annual Governance Statement.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning the Internal Audit Annual Assurance Report 2023/24.

The Audit Manager introduced the report and highlighted that an annual assurance was required by the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards. The report informed the Committee about the outcome of work done during year as well as work done by other sources, such as external inspections. The report concluded that reasonable assurance could be given to the Council’s Governance, Risk Management, and Control Framework which remained robust. It was emphasised that this was the same rating as the previous year.

The Audit Manager indicated that an area of concern which had been brought forward from the previous year’s report was around the number of senior officer vacancies. Although the risk was that this could drive instability and uncertainty, the Audit Manager assured the Committee that this had not been found to be the case. She also confirmed that no completed corporate audit was rated as less than satisfactory or reasonable assurance, and that there had been only one school which had received a weak opinion. In addition, the proportion of audit opinions rated satisfactory or above were significantly greater than those considered weak, very weak, or limited assurance, which went on to support the final audit opinion. The Committee did note that there had been one unsatisfactory follow-up report, but that a stage three follow-up would take place within six months.

On the performance of the audit team, they had an 80 per cent outturn annual target for the agreed audit plan but actually managed to achieve 89 per cent. In addition, the Audit Manager clarified that not all of the planned assurance work could be completed due to the need to take on two pieces of unplanned audit work.

On a question about the criteria used to decide whether to follow-up on an audit, the Audit Manager confirmed that any audit rated less than satisfactory would be pursued. In response to a concern raised about if senior officer vacancies were still in the top four corporate risks, as it had been in the previous year, the Audit Manager assured the Committee that this was no longer on that top list.

In response to a question about the audit cycle for schools, the Committee noted that the aim was to audit schools at a minimum of once every six years. In addition, other areas such as corporate audits, would be once every five years for high risks, six to seven for medium risks, and above nine years for low risks, and that these categories were assessed yearly.

Members enquired into the single unsatisfactory rating on the fixed asset register. The Audit Manager acknowledged that it was a complex area and that although the information was likely accurate, some of the processes around the collating of the information could be improved – primarily around reconciliation and increased stages of checking information.

Overall, the Committee thanked the internal audit team for their work and agreed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8