Agenda item

To provide the Committee with a summary of the draft Risk Based Internal Audit Plan 2021/22 as required by the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 and the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS) 2017.

The Head of ARA presented the report which was the result of ARA’s Internal Audit planning review and an extensive consultation exercise with senior management, third party assurance providers, and Members. It was designed to cover the breadth of areas reflecting the Council’s directorates, their work and their risks, and included a number of Council-wide reviews. ARA’s audit priority rating system had been applied to distinguish priorities and the report included the reason for each piece of work. The Head of ARA confirmed that ARA was providing 463 service days to the Council for this plan of work.

Councillor McKeown asked how ARA ensured that it had staff with the appropriate skills and expertise to carry out specialist pieces of work so that the audit outcomes are accurate. She raised particular concerns about the proposed audit of Safeguarding and that of Anti-Social Behaviour. The Head of ARA explained that there was a legal requirement that Internal Auditors can only undertake work for which they are technically competent, ensuring that they undertake research and fully understand the issues to be audited. He emphasised that the two Internal Audits raised as a concern were technically challenging but not uncommon and that he was confident that ARA would complete the work satisfactorily. Councillor McKeown stated that she was not convinced by this and did not believe that ARA was sufficiently cognisant of the skills required to carry out a proper review of Safeguarding. The Head of ARA asserted that he did not agree with Councillor McKeown’s comment. Councillor Pearson expressed that it was exceedingly dangerous for the Committee to question the competence of the Council’s auditors who have so ably served the Council for many years and that he wished to disassociate himself from the statement.

Councillor Davies questioned, as the Housing Committee had only recently agreed a policy on Anti-Social Behaviour, how effectiveness could be measured at this point. The Principal Auditor confirmed that ARA would look to schedule this review in the last quarter of the year, but would continue to liaise with management through the year to ensure that value could be added. Councillor Davies raised a concern that there were too many Priority 1 audits in the plan and whether they could therefore be effectively managed. The Head of ARA confirmed that there were a similar number of Priority 1 audits in the plan as last year, which had been largely completed, and therefore, he was confident that these could also be achieved. Councillor Davies questioned whether it was concerning that there were still outstanding issues around the Council’s ability to follow standard procurement processes. The Strategic Director of Resources offered reassurance that concern was not justified, since further improvements to the procurement processes had been made following recommendations from some consultancy audit work and this would be further reported upon.

Councillor Clifton queried whether the Anti-Social Behaviour audit was limited to areas where the Council owns housing, or extends to how it was managed across the whole district. The Principal Auditor confirmed that the scope of the review would be based on the associated risks, and a wider scope could be drawn up if that would provide greater benefits. The Chair reported that there had been some correspondence regarding decisions that had been made but not reported, or not reported as expected. In particular, there had been some planning matters which had drawn enquiries from concerned Councillors, and a procedural problem which had been cogently remarked upon for its occurrence. The Chair invited Councillor Tucker to comment, who drew attention to one of many planning applications in the Area of Outstanding National Beauty which was put forward for Officer delegation but agreed that it would go to Development Control Committee (DCC) if the Officer was minded to approve it, given the sensitivity with other applications in the area. Although this was agreed last year, it had been disclosed last week that the case Officer did not follow instructions and had informed the applicant that the application had been successful. This had caused a great deal of concern and anger in the area, including in the Parish Council.

Councillor Kay reported that he had raised some serious concerns relating to planning which he had sent to the Chief Executive and asked the Committee to agree to instruct the Internal Auditors to address them. Councillor Pearson confirmed his view that there had been shortcomings in the Planning and Enforcement Department for many years and that more recent mistakes would not have occurred with appropriate planning and management. He requested that an audit of the Planning and Enforcement department be included in the Internal Audit Plan. Councillor Williams asked whether the current Internal Audit of the planning application process could cover the issues raised by Councillor Tucker. He also suggested that it would be more appropriate to review Enforcement when it was incorporated into the new IT system being developed for this area of work. The Principal Auditor confirmed that ARA would need to ensure that all issues relating to the planning application process were incorporated into the scope of the audit so the current work could provide the assurances the Committee was seeking with any potential improvement if identified.

The Chair suggested that Internal Audit be instructed to investigate these matters to establish whether due procedure and process had been followed as presently set down, the reason or cause of any omission to be established, and reported back to Committee together with corrective action taken, and the action taken to prevent a future occurrence. Current Members who had raised these matters, whether returned or retired following elections on 6 May 2021, would be interviewed by Internal Audit in preparation of that report. Subsequently the report should be submitted to the Audit and Standards Committee at its next meeting on 13 July 2021.

The Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that consideration would be given as to whether the issues raised by Councillor Tucker could be incorporated into the planning application audit. He emphasised that the Planning Team had responded to a number of the issues raised by Councillor Kay and consideration had been given to the scope of an additional audit as requested by the Committee. He explained that some issues may take longer to report on to properly reflect the progress and improvements made by the service. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for the Committee to receive an update on progress to date, and a plan of future work, at its next meeting. This was accepted by the Committee. Councillor Tucker requested that a representative of those Parish Councils affected by the failures of the planning service also be invited to contribute to the Internal Audit. The Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that this would be considered in drawing up its scope.

The Chair proposed an amendment to the Motion to add:

‘c) additional wording as confirmed at 20.26 during the meeting by the Chair.’

On being put to the vote the substantive Motion, including the amendment, was carried with 6 votes for and 1 vote against.

RESOLVED    a) To agree that the Annual Risk Based Internal Audit Plan 2021/22 reflects the current risk profile of the Council;

b) To approve the Annual Risk Based Internal Audit Plan 2021/22 as detailed in Appendix A; and

c) Additional wording as confirmed at 20.26 during the meeting by the Chair.