Agenda item

The Head of Audit and Enforcement provided Members with a written report to support the Annual Governance Statement.

Members were informed that during the year there were two audits that were issued with no assurance reports; Blue Badges and Chantry School. Details of the actions being taken to rectify the system weaknesses were reported      

The Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director for Central Services outlined to Members the Planning Enforcement role which the Head of Audit had within her responsibilities. This role did not impact on the work of the Audit Team. Members were advised the backlog of outstanding enforcement matters had been reduced since the Head of Audit had assumed management responsibilities for enforcement matters.

Reference was made to the recent transfer back to the Council of Hillingdon Homes with the Audit Team providing audit services, within their existing staffing resource. The Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director for Central Services advised that the Head of Audit and Enforcement was managing and could cover the extra work, however the situation would be monitored and reviewed to ensure there were no capacity problems.

Internal Audit Progress Report

The Head of Audit and Enforcement advised that there were no significant causes for concern at this time with the levels of assurance being reported, although 8 audits, including 2 schools, had received Limited Assurance in the current period.

In relation to Records Management, Members were informed of the reasons for Limited Assurance and it was acknowledged that this Council held many paper copy files. The Committee noted management comments that the recommendations would be implemented as part of the scanning and document management work stream of the New Ways of Working Group.

In relation to Creditors and Protocol Creditors, this had been given Limited Assurance because the audit had been carried out soon after two payment teams were merged and full procedures and controls had not been fully implemented.

Discussion took place regarding Court Costs which had been given Limited Assurance and whether awarded court costs were being recovered effectively, efficiently and economically. The Chairman commented that this should be a basic management control but the Head of Audit and Enforcement explained this had occurred because the Courts had changed the system in relation to awarded court costs.

A number of comments were made in regard to Follow Up Audits:

• IT Disaster Recovery – Members noted that all four actions points from April 2010 had still not been implemented and remained outstanding. In addition in the Internal Audit Plan 2008-9 Progress report, there were still a number of outstanding IT Audits. Members asked that the Head of ICT be invited to attend the next meeting of this Committee to update the Committee on the implementation of these outstanding actions. The IT Audit Plan for this year would be circulated to Members.
• Culture and Arts – The Head of Audit and Enforcement would provide Members with details on why there were still four outstanding actions in this audit.
• Ruislip High – The Head of Audit and Enforcement would provide Members with further details on the outstanding recommendations in relation to this audit.

RESOLVED –

1. That the audit opinion and the evidence on which the opinion was based in relation to the Annual Assurance Statement be noted.

2. That the in-year progress against the Internal Audit Plan for 2010-11 and the updated position of those audits undertaken in 2007-8, 2008-9 and 2009-10 be noted.

3. That the Head of ICT be invited to attend the next meeting of this Committee to update the Committee on the implementation of the outstanding actions relating to IT.