Agenda item

The HIA introduced the report and informed Members that the Progress and Follow-up reports had been combined to discuss all internal audit matters together. She added that the accounts receivable audit had been deferred as it was not deemed appropriate to undertake whilst a new financial system was being implemented, and had therefore be rescheduled for 2023/24. It was noted that Q1 work was complete and Q2 was underway and expected to be reported at the December meeting. The HIA reported that key issues and findings were presented on an initial summary page, with Corporate Health and Safety given a reasonable assurance grading, with one important recommendation to ensure that there was an overall record of inspections. She added that there were more administrative points related to outlining the terms of reference, ensuring training requirements were met appropriate to staff roles, and potential for KPIs related to health and safety. On follow-up recommendations, the HIA stated that there was an error related to a procurement and contract management recommendation where a comment given was intended for the finance system upgrade. She added that an up to date response was available with a request made to extend the deadline to 31^st December, as a result of an unprecedented number of incidents that had required attention including storms, flood alerts and severe hot weather.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        Cllr C Cushing referred to a risk on S106 agreements and noted that the Exocom Project was reported to be in progress and due for completion at the end of September, and asked if the project was complete. The HIA replied that the project had been on track, but she would need to contact officers to determine whether it had been completed prior to the stated deadline. Cllr C Cushing suggested that it could be helpful to see all S106 awards, to which the HIA replied that this should be possible, though a request would need to be made to officers to determine whether they could produce this information for the next meeting. Cllr C Cushing referred to the new Serco timetable on p76 where an action had been deferred and asked whether a more up to date response was available. The HIA replied that it was the most up to date information available, and the CE noted that the decision to delay implementation had been taken to avoid the summer period, with implementation beginning on 5^th September. He added that the significant changes, in addition to recent events such as the bank holiday for Queen Elizabeth’s funeral had led to an increased number of missed collections. It was noted that officers were in regular contact with Serco on complaints and the number of missed bins was falling. Cllr C Cushing asked whether it was possible to provide any certainty on when the issues would be resolved, to which the CE replied that the new collections model was on week four and it was hoped that the service would continue to improve.

     ii.        Cllr S Penfold referred to penalty charge notices and suggested that the Council appeared to have no means of checking the income generated, and asked for clarification on whether this related to the forty percent income for the Council or the total revenue generated. The HIA replied that it related to the forty percent income, and suggested that she could seek to provide more information at the next meeting to improve understanding of the contract.

    iii.        Cllr E Seward referred to bin collections and noted that he had seen issues in North Walsham where collection days had been advertised incorrectly, though the issue had now been resolved. He referred to the new S106 monitoring software and asked officers for further clarification on when this would be active.

   iv.        The Chairman referred to five key strategic findings, which he suggested could be seen as a relatively high number, and asked at what level the Council’s overall opinion would change. The HIA replied that the action points could be broken down into one important, five needing attention and one operational effectiveness matter, and Members should therefore be reassured that with only one important action, the Council was not at risk of receiving a limited assurance grading. The Chairman referred to the number of revisions for each audit recommendation, and asked that any recommendation revised more than four times be highlighted in red. The HIA agreed and noted that a request had also been made for officers to provide greater context to explain delays.

RESOLVED

To receive and note the internal audit progress and the progress made against internal audit recommendations within the period covered by the report.