Agenda item

The Head of Internal Audit (Stoke on Trent City Council) presented the Internal Audit Annual Report and Opinion. The internal control environment was deemed satisfactory based on the work undertaken throughout the year as stated in paragraph 2.4 of the report. Marginal / neutral opinions were given for planning enforcement, trade waste services and disabled facilities grants. There were also 2 good opinions, 2 satisfactory opinions and 1 without opinion.

Members asked questions and responses were provided as follows:

-       Cllr Stubbs referred to the summary page saying that 50% of the work had been completed. Did that mean the other 50% of the work hadn’t been completed and had to be carried to the next year or was it a rolling programme? – It was indeed a rolling programme, audits were completed from one year’s plan to the next. 

-       Cllr Stubbs referred to the 39 recommendations made throughout the year, 51% of which had been implemented. How did these figures compare with other authorities? – It varied between authorities and depended on the kind of recommendations that were made. The team would liaise with services managers to understand the causes of issues and reporting back to the senior management team so that appropriate action could be taken. It was often the case that progress had been made and recommendations were not far from being completed.

The Chair requested that recommendations that were not being implemented at all be brought to the committee. The Service Director for Finance (S151 Officer) commented that some of the recommendations were about software system updates regarding notably GDPR which the team was currently awaiting. Cllr Stubbs asked if the systems were required to be legally compliant and if they would run parallel to the old system. – It was clarified that old systems would be running in parallel during the handover period while the new systems were being implemented.

-       In reference to Planning Enforcement, paragraph 2.7 of the Annual Report, Cllr Stubbs wished to know how close to having a negative opinion instead of a marginal opinion the Council got. – The recommendations were made against a matrix and there were a lot of positive performance coming across as well.

Cllr Stubbs asked if it was possible to see the matrix. – The systems were reviewed by the team and recommendations would be picked up as part of the One Council programme. 

-       With regards to disabled facilities grants, Cllr Stubbs wondered if the four recommendations would be pulled through or would the new system operate in a way that would negate the need to look at them. – The disabled facilities grants that were managed by a third party were now back in-house. The recommendations were about this particular contract which hadn’t been working as efficiently as it could.

-       Reiterating Cllr Stubbs’ question the Chair asked for a clarification about whether the matrix was something that could be demonstrated easily or if it was all automated. – It was confirmed that the way the matrix operated could be circulated to members.

-       About paragraph 3.5 and the twelve items from the previous year that hadn’t been implemented even though progress was made, Cllr Stubbs asked if there were any key reasons why this hadn’t been done. – Reasons included software and capacity and were reported to the senior leadership team. They were monitored to be implemented as soon as reasonably practicable. The Head of Internal Audit would provide further details at a later meeting of the committee.

Cllr Whieldon raised that while having things carried out externally meant experiencing delays from being in the hands of other people, bringing things back in house implied having things running in parallel for  a while and further delays during the process.

The Service Director for Finance (S151 Officer) commented that a lot of the recommendations were not applicable anymore. Things had changed as part of the One Council programme and some had been superseded by different ways of working.

-       Cllr Brockie followed up on Cllr Whieldon’s comment and said bringing things back in house had implications for scrutiny. It also meant staff training and maintaining objectivity with the view of saving money and streamlining the service with development and information technologies. It was important to look at what other boroughs were doing not to get too self-analytical and keep bringing external agencies as required to act as critical friends. – Cllr Whieldon supported the statement although reminding that the Committee had the greater knowledge required for scrutiny while contractors often thought they knew what the Council was doing but didn’t have the grasp of everything which was throwing out its own problems. The Chair commented that it was the point of the internal audit system. The Service Director for Finance (S151 Officer) clarified that the Finance team was involved with other authorities, constantly swapping ideas and discuss issues as well as what was working. The Peer Review Challenge to be discussed at Full Council would be an example of that.

Resolved:     That the Internal Audit Annual Report for 2022/23 be noted.

Watch the meeting here