Agenda item

Rich Clarke, the Head of the Audit Partnership, presented his annual opinion on the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the authority’s framework of governance, risk management and control. He advised that, based upon the audit reviews undertaken in 2015/16 – a summary of which was set out in the full annual report circulated with the agenda – he was satisfied that: (a) the authority could place assurance on the system of control; (b) the corporate governance framework complied in all significant respects with the professional practice guidance; and (c) the authority’s risk management processes were effective.

Mr Clarke drew attention to page 101 of the agenda, where the follow-up work of internal audit recommendations was explained. He advised that, of the 104 agreed actions arising from his team’s project work, all 87 that were due for implementation by 31 March 2016 had been undertaken.

Mr Clarke wished to place on record his appreciation to seven members of the Mid-Kent Audit Service team who had achieved additional qualifications during the year, alongside delivering the agreed audit plan work. Details of this were set out on page 109 of the agenda.

Mr Quigley referred to the ‘data protection’ section of the annual report, specifically paragraph 44, set out on page 96. This stated that “…Mid-Kent Legal Services are currently revising relevant policies with a view to implementation by the end of 2015”. He asked what the current position was. Mr Clarke advised that, although the Council was broadly compliant, some work was needed to embed approaches that were currently the subject of specific focus so that they could become part of the Council’s ordinary business.

Councillor Hamilton stressed the need to maintain a very close focus on the risks of data protection breaches, an aspect which was constantly changing. Mr Clarke acknowledged the point, adding that there was a need to improve staff training, as had been recognised by the Council, who were exploring further means of delivering training, such as e-learning.

Mr Shiels referred to the summary of audit plan work set out on page 91 of the agenda, specifically the number of days scheduled for ‘risk management and counter-fraud work’. He noted that there had been 35 days scheduled for this work but that only 11 had been spent on this activity; Mr Shiels asked whether Mr Clarke was satisfied that this work had received sufficient focus. Mr Clarke said that counter-fraud in particular was largely a reactive process but added that the Revenues and Benefits service had their own, separate, counter-fraud team, which operated in addition to the internal audit function. He also advised that CIPFA had issued a new counter-fraud guidance document in late 2015 that was likely to require a fresh look at the Council’s counter-fraud processes; Mr Clarke said that this was work was likely to take place across 2016/17.

Councillor Coleman enquired about the ‘national fraud initiative’, set out on page 105 of the agenda. He asked how the key contacts were selected and if there was a legal basis to this. Mr Clarke advised that this was a statutory requirement, with which local authorities had to comply. As for the key contact, Mr Clarke said it was the Section 151 Officer in each case; in Tunbridge Wells, he added, the Section 151 Officer (i.e. the Director of Finance and Corporate Services) had delegated the task to a specific post-holder.

In conclusion, the Chairman thanked the Head of the Audit Partnership for the comprehensive report and its findings.

RESOLVED –

(1)    That the Committee notes the Head of Audit’s report and opinion for 2015/16 that reliance can be placed on the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s arrangements for internal control governance and risk management; and

(2)    That the Committee notes the work underlying that opinion and the Head of Audit’s view that the audit service has maintained appropriate independence and compliance with Public Sector Internal Audit Standards through 2015/16.