Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

Internal Audit Plan Monitoring Report

To consider the Internal Audit work undertaken and the assurance given on the adequacy of internal controls operating in the systems audited.  

Minutes:

29.1          The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 91-112, summarised the work undertaken by the Internal Audit team since the last Committee.  Members were asked to consider the audit work completed and the assurance given on the adequacy of internal controls operating in the systems audited.

29.2          The Head of Corporate Services advised that the full details of the audits undertaken were attached at Appendix 1 to the report and two of those - emergency planning and the fraud and corruption framework - had already been discussed under the previous Agenda Item.  A list of audit recommendations that were due to be followed-up could be found at Appendix 2 to the report; of the 24 recommendations, 10 had been implemented, 11 partially implemented and three were yet to be implemented.  It was noted that revised implementation dates had been agreed for those recommendations which were partially, or yet to be, implemented. 

29.3          With regard to the debtors audit, Members were informed that the key financial systems were always well managed and resulted in good opinions which was reflected in the external auditors’ reports.  There was a good level of assurance that invoices raised were correctly coded and that systems were properly reconciled with regular updates to budget holders.  An audit had also been carried out in relation to the serious and organised crime framework; whilst Tewkesbury Borough was a low risk area, this was a serious problem which cost the UK more than £24 billion per year.   Whilst there was a satisfactory level of assurance that hackney carriage and private hire driver licensing processes gave consideration to the serious and organised crime framework, there were procedural issues which could be sharpened up, for example, all renewal applications were verified by two Officers and it was recommended that those checks were demonstrated on the software system to show the separation of duties.  The second recommendation related to Disclosure and Barring Service (DSB) checks which were not consistently demonstrated for operator applications.  In addition, the data filled in on the system needed to be enhanced to demonstrate that safeguarding training had been completed by all licensed drivers in accordance with policy which required this to be undertaken within six months of the licence being granted.  It was also recommended that a regular sample check of hackney carriage and private hire driver, vehicle and operator licences should be undertaken to ensure that all information had been accurately recorded into the software system and that all procedures were being followed correctly.  It was noted that the Council’s Constitution delegated the granting of a licence to the Licensing Officer with any potential refusal to be submitted to the Licensing Sub-Committee for determination; however, in 2018, two refused applications had not been submitted to a Licensing Sub-Committee so the recommendation around spot-checks should ensure a consistent approach in future.  With regard to revoking a licence, the Senior Licensing Officer had indicated that this was rare with only three recorded between 2007 and 2012; notwithstanding this, the reasons for the revocations had not been recorded and that was expected as good practice.  In terms of enforcement, the licensing policy was currently being reviewed and the Senior Licensing Officer had advised that one of the proposed changes was to introduce a ‘three strikes’ system whereby complaints and breaches of conditions would result in the imposition of a ‘strike’ – on reaching three strikes within a given period, the driver would be referred to a Licensing Sub-Committee for a review of their licence.  The final recommendation was around demonstrating that complaints around drivers were processed and linked to the licence rather than held centrally.  The Head of Corporate Services advised that the Senior Licensing Officer had joined the authority fairly recently and was currently addressing these legacy issues so it was hoped that the follow-up audit would be positive.  A Member questioned whether Officers actually met the hackney carriage and private hire drivers to ensure they were who they purported to be and the Head of Community Services confirmed that Officers controlled the application process, which included a DBS check, and tended to see the applicants face to face as part of that to check their paperwork.  He gave assurance that, once a licence had been granted, enforcement action could be taken at any time if an incident was brought to Officers’ attention. 

29.4          With regard to Appendix 2, a Member drew attention to Page No. 110 of the report which stated that a risk assessment of licensed premises should be carried out in accordance with the Council’s statement of licensing policy and sought clarification as to what that meant.  The Head of Community Services explained that, whilst it was not a requirement for licensed premises to be risk-rated, it was considered good practice – there were no high risk premises within the borough, e.g. nightclubs, but public protection was a licensing objective so it was intended to come up with an inspection programme to ensure that all premises were complying with their licences.  In response to a query, Members were informed that, historically, there had not been an inspection programme in place but a commitment had been made to the Licensing Committee that this was to be implemented now that the Senior Licensing Officer was in post. 

29.5           A Member noted that two recommendations arising from the bulky waste audit were still outstanding despite the implementation dates having been changed at least twice and he sought an explanation as to the reasons why.  The Head of Community Services advised that the timescales that had originally been agreed for these particular recommendations were very ambitious and, although Officers had tried to move forward as quickly as possible, there had been a number of audits of services within his area over the year which had inevitably impacted on resources.  Pages No. 112 and 113 of the report detailed three recommendations arising from the Ubico audit and he considered the one in relation to budget monitoring of the Ubico contract was the most important so that had taken priority and had now been implemented.  Nevertheless, he stressed that all of the work would be done and he would work through the outstanding recommendations accordingly.  In terms of bulky waste specifically, he confirmed that the review was progressing well.  In response to a query as to who set the implementation dates for the recommendations, the Head of Community Services advised that these were agreed with Internal Audit but he recognised they needed to be more realistic.  The Head of Corporate Services explained that the bulky waste service had not been reviewed for a number of years which was the reason for the recommendation.  There had been recognition of the fact that there was a lack of capacity within the organisation around project management with only one Officer whose main focus had been garden waste; however, that system was now in place and ‘business as usual’ so that Officer would now be leading on a full review of the bulky waste service. 

29.6           A Member drew attention to Page No. 109 of the report and asked for an explanation on the ICT PSN Submission and ICT Environmental Controls.  The Head of Corporate Services explained that this was an annual exercise carried out by the IT team; it was noted that Tewkesbury Borough Council was usually compliant at the first time of asking whereas many other Councils were not.  The recommendation related to reviewing two key policies but he stressed that this did not mean that the Council was not currently complying but was simply down to resources - he pointed out that a new IT Manager had been appointed during the year and the team had been required to carry out a lot of work such as installation of a new firewall.  He clarified that, if actions did slip, the Committee had the right to call-in the responsible officer to gain assurance that they were feasible and it was noted that outstanding actions were also discussed at Management Team.  The Senior Internal Auditor advised that recommendations were prioritised into low, medium and high priority and she suggested that Members focus on the medium and high priorities if they intended to call Officers in to a future meeting. 

29.7           A Member commented that it seemed as if only one thing could be done at a time and he questioned whether there was a programme in place.  The Head of Corporate Services explained that the Council had a new commercial strategy which focused on new income areas and improving services within the limited capacity available in the authority and a paper was being compiled with the intention of bringing in additional resources on project management and digital expertise to drive the process forward.  He advised that the Garden Waste audit carried out three years earlier had been significant as it had revealed that bins were being collected which had not been paid for and had resulted in the introduction of the new stickering system – this was a significant project and it had taken 18 months to move to a new annual renewal date.  He pointed out that bulky waste and trade waste both fitted with the commercial agenda and the latter was a priority in the Council Plan.  In addition, there was more work to do on service improvement e.g. digital programme, streamlining services – this was done via Transform Working Group.

29.8          Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED          That the Internal Audit Monitoring Report be NOTED.

Supporting documents: