Agenda item

(To receive a report from Lucy Pledge, Head of Corporate Audit and Risk Management, which provides the Committee with an update on progress made against the Audit Plan 2013/14)

The Committee received an update on progress made against the Audit Plan 2013/14.  It was reported that good progress had been made against the Plan with 81% of the planned work being completed (as at 28 February 2014).  Members were also advised that 10 County Council audits had been completed since the last progress report, 1 of these resulted in limited assurance and two systems which received a split assurance (substantial/limited).  A further 33 County Council audits were in progress.

Council Priority Activities (Major Projects and Programmes)

The Head of Performance and Programmes Service (PPS) attended the meeting to respond to the audits of the assurance role of PPS which had been assessed as 'limited'. 

The audit suggested that whilst PPS had both the capability and capacity to carry out the assurance function demanded of it, assurance was not as effective as it could be due to a combination of non-compliance and a lack of mandate and agreed standards.  Many of the recommendations required decisions from the Corporate Management Board and these would be taken to them no later than May 2014.  These included:

·         The need to strengthen business cases, being clear about what the key elements in a business were and ensure that major problems had them;

·         The need to be clear about what the 'must do's' were in projects;

·         To ensure that assurance was non-negotiable and that if an activity fitted the criteria for assurance, the senior manager must comply;

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

Council Priority Activities (Major Projects and Programmes)

·         There were separate action plans for each of the high priority and medium priority recommendations which had been identified;

·         For each priority activity, the benefits hoped to be achieved from the activity would be identified, along with how they would be delivered, and this would also form part of the monitoring;

·         Officers were confident that all 11 actions would be completed by May 2014, as they were all interdependent on each other.  Members requested that they be informed of the outcome of the discussions with CMB;

Horncastle Business Centre

·         A manager from another business centre would be brought in to improve the processes in place;

·         Officers would be working hard to complete the management actions identified in the audit;

·         There had been an unrealistic income target, but these had been amended;

·         Some audit work on the business cases for the community hubs had been carried out;

Creditors (split assurance – Limited – Directorates; Substantial – Mouchel)

·         The use of retrospective orders had been a concern and raised three risks which were payments were slower, offered poor value for money and there was the potential for poor budget management.  Improvements in this area were now on target;

·         There was a lot of good practice taking place at the year end;

·         The introduction of the new Agresso system would need a change in process and culture over the next 12 months;

·         It was clarified that the 30 days for payment referred to 30 days from the invoice date;

·         It was considered important that any new system did not conflict with the policy of supporting local businesses.  Members were informed that budget holders would be able to request that a particular supplier was set up on the system;

·         It would be possible to set up framework orders;

RESOLVED

            That the outcomes of the Corporate Audit work be noted.