Issue - meetings
Annual Report of the Head of Internal Audit
Meeting: 25/07/2018 - Audit Committee (Item 5)
5 Annual Report of the Head of Internal Audit PDF 100 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Steven Tinkler, Interim Head of Audit and Risk Management presented the Annual Report of the Head of Internal Audit. Mr Tinkler stated this report took a retrospective look at the achievements of internal audit, the audits undertaken and the assurances achieved.
He said the report was a requirement of the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS), which gave Members an opinion on the audits undertaken plus the Annual Governance Statement which forms part of the statement of accounts required under the Accounts and Audits Regulations 2015.
In particular Mr Tinkler referred members to the detailed report at page 77 and made reference to page 82, table 1, which showed the percentage of recommendations that had been agreed and implemented. He also referred Members to pages 84/85, table 4, which listed the schools’ audited over 2017/18. Mr Tinkler said on average a total of 20 -25 schools are sampled as part of a rolling calendar. Page 85 – table 5, showed the assurance opinions in relation to Tower Hamlets Homes.
Mr Tinkler also stated in relation to point 5.3.1 – page 87 that work was actively on-going in relation to the recommendations identified by the Kent County Council peer review.
Members of the Committee made the following comments and asked questions in relation to the report:
· In reference to Table 4, Schools Audit why do some schools have ‘draft’ assurances?
· Have the responses to the draft assurances been followed up?
· In relation to Langdon Park – what are the reasons for a ‘substantial’ assurance?
· Page 82 – Leaving Care Services achieved a ‘nil’ assurance. Can you explain why this is?
o Steven Tinkler referred Members to page 11 of the pervious minutes and said this detailed the action taken, however there would be a further audit once the formal review by independent consultants had been completed.
· With regard to the schools, are only schools audited? Do you audit school nurseries and day nurseries?
· Do the audit reports show if services/schools are providing value for money?
· Page 83, table 2 refers to ‘Creditors’ – what does this mean and is it linked to the issues of purchase cards?
· Page 83, table 3 refers to cyber security – what steps have been taken to strengthen ICT security.
· Page 85, Tower Hamlets Homes shows limited assurance with regards to the management of housing disrepairs. What are the reasons for this?
· Page 86, point 4.6.1 refers to the increasing high risk of fraud across the public sector? Do you have Tower Hamlet specific examples?
· Page 87, point 4.6.3 – How is the work of the Counter-Fraud Team publicised?
· There is a perception that we do not publicise anti-fraud. What role can the committee Members play in countering this perception?
Members of the Audit Committee:
1. Considered the content and opinion of the Head of Internal Audit as outlined within the annual report and which included a summary of the audits undertaken, which have not previously been reported.