Agenda item

(To receive a report which provides an update on progress made against the Audit Plan 2014/15 and provides summaries of all audits completed within the period September to December 2014)

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Committee with an update on progress made against the Audit Plan 2014/15 and provided summaries of all audits completed within the period September to December 2014.

A progress update on the Agresso implementation was also provided by the Chief Information and Commissioning Officer as the project was moving so dynamically, and it was felt that this was an appropriate time to update the committee.

 Members were advised that the project had now entered a very intense stage, as the project was in the second round of integration and system testing.  This stage involved officers ensuring that the system did do what it was expected to do.  It was noted that problems had been encountered in terms of resources, as it had been difficult to secure sufficiently experienced payroll staff to carry out the very high number of payroll tests which were necessary.  Getting the payroll aspect right was a key activity.  The first end to end test of the full payroll was due to be carried on the coming weeks, which would give a very good indication of whether the system was working correctly.

Training for staff would be in a number of different formats, and a lot of it could be carried out online, for example time sheets, annual leave and placing orders.  There would more detailed face to face training for staff using it in relation to HR and finance.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information presented and some of the issues raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was explained that the User Acceptance Training (UAT) which was due to take place was an opportunity for the future users of the system to go through a set of tests and see whether the system works.  If the system did not work as it should then that issue would be documented and addressed;

·         The final sign off of the system would be at the end of June 2015;

·         It was acknowledged that there were still risks with payroll, however, the absolute worst case scenario was that the March payroll would need to be re-run, meaning that people would be paid the same amount in April as they were in March.  Any corrections would then be made as necessary by Serco;

·         Members were assured by the Serco Partnership Director that Serco understood their responsibilities in relation to this contract;

·         It was reported that all invoices in the old system would be paid by 31 March;

·         Risks in terms of data protection  were being well managed during this process;

·         Very detailed plans were being developed for the transportation of the physical files.  The Information Governance Team was closely involved in this process;

·         It was requested that a further update on the Agresso and Mosaic implementation be brought to the March meeting of the Committee.

It was reported that 11 audits had been completed between September and December 2014, and there were 13 in progress.  Members were advised that since the last progress report, there were two audits with an opinion of 'Major Improvement Required' which were substance mis-use and Contract management – provision of wheeled loading shovels.  It was noted that the audit of contract management within Environment and Economy had resulted in a three way assurance split.

Simon Gladwin from Public Health was in attendance to answer questions from the Committee in relation to the Substance Misuse audit.  It was reported that when the audit was carried out Public Health was in a process of transition, and there was a governance process in place to govern the joint partnership group.

In relation to misuse services, it was reported that the Joint Commissioning Group (JCG) had now been disbanded and a new delivery group was being developed and a Strategy Co-ordinator had been employed.

There were issues around the Terms of Reference, and this was the only area not completed.  However, they were being reviewed and revised to remove the JCG and replace with the new delivery group. 

In relation to the performance targets, there was some very detailed reports and very specific reports being produced, and there was still exception reporting taking place.

In terms of the audit of Contract Management in Environment and Economy, it was reported that an update had been provided from Environmental Services.  It was reported that this was a five year contract and was worth £800,000.  Management had provided assurance that the actions relating to procurement had been implemented.  It was also noted that the usage of the loading shovels was expected to increase from 1 April 2015 with the increased use of the Waste Transfer Stations due to the new countywide recycling contract.

Members were advised that it was right for them to challenge when audits had been cancelled, but were reminded that the Committee did not direct the work of internal audit.  However, the Committee needed to be comfortable that there was a reasonable reason why an audit had been deferred or cancelled, so there may be a need for more rationale to be included in the report on these occasions.

RESOLVED

            That the outcomes of the Internal Audit work be noted.