Audit Committee Minutes - 26 September 2005

David Feintuck

Informations

• Publié par: Ebbe
• Nombre de lectures: 48
• Langue: English

Extrait

Audit Committee

Minutes

of a meeting of the

Audit Committee

held in the

Warren Room, Lewes

House, 32 High Street, Lewes

on

Monday, 26 September 2005

at 2.30pm

Present:

Councillors J M Harrison-Hicks (Chair), J F Daly, K G Davies, J E Lewry and

J H Webber

Officers attending:

Andy Bryce, Head of Waste and Recycling Services (Items 10 to 14)

David Feintuck, Committee Officer

David Heath, Head of Audit and Performance

Also attending:

Councillor S I C James

Richard Smith, Audit Manager, Audit Commission

Stephen Aynsley-Smith, Audit Commission

Apologies:

Councillors R C S Brown and J A Ost

Minutes

Action

10

Declaration of Substitute Members

Councillor Lewry declared that she was substituting for Councillor Ost.

11

Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2005 were approved as

a correct record and signed by the Chair.

6

Audit Committee

7

26 September 2005

12

Progress Report on decisions taken by the Audit Committee

The Committee considered Report No 228/05 which updated the

Committee on the progress made with regard to the decisions of the Audit

Committee.

Minute No 5.2

The Head of Audit and Performance stated that the Annual Report of the

Council's Systems of Internal Control 2004/2005 had been reported with the

Final Accounts (as part of the Statement of Internal Control) for that year

and submitted to the Cabinet.

Minute No 6.1

Copies of the 2003/2004 Statement on Internal Control were provided for

members and a copy appears in the Minute Book.

Minute No 8.1

Insufficient members had been able to attend the information session

arranged prior to the meeting to make the session viable.

Minute No 9.2

Future meeting dates were considered at Item 17 below.

Resolved:

12.1

That the Report be noted.

13

Audit Commission - Interim Regularity Memorandum, Lewes District

Council, Audit 2004/2005

The Committee considered Report No 229/05 which updated the

Committee on the progress of the Audit Commission's work.

Mr Aynsley-Smith stated that it was hoped that the Council's accounts for

2004/2005 would shortly be signed off.

The Report focused on the financial

aspect of corporate governance, an opinion audit and a review of internal

audit.

The recommendations contained within the Summary Report had

been accepted and steps taken to include revised procedures as

appropriate.

The Report noted that, overall, Internal Audit was found to be

an effective function of the Council.

In response to councillors' questions, Mr Smith explained that the term

"adequate" (paragraph 30 of the Report) indicated there were no issues of

concern to report.

With regard to recommendation 1, procedural notes for

the main accounting system were to be reviewed and updated annually.

Mr Smith stated that, with regard to the 2005/2006 audit, a new grading

system involving a scored judgment with regard to use of resources would

Audit Committee

8

26 September 2005

be used, in the first instance in the Audit and Inspection Letter of

March 2006.

Resolved:

13.1

That the Report be noted.

14

Discussion of Audit Commission Inspection Report on Waste,

Recycling and Street Cleansing

Mr Smith stated that the Report in question had formed an aspect of the

Audit Commission's Inspection Plan for the Council and a feedback session

on the Report (a copy of which appears in the Minute Book) had been held

on 22 September 2005.

The Head of Waste and Recycling Services stated that issues existed with

regard to the Inspection Report both factual and interpretative.

Only a short

time window for appeal had been available.

With regard to staff issues, the Head of Service disputed that more

permanent frontline staff were needed.

High sickness levels had resulted

in a particularly high use of agency staff at the time of the inspection but in

general it was not possible to incorporate a great deal of slack in the

system.

The "uncertain result" with regard to confidence in improvement in the

service contained in the Report resulted from the Council failing to adopt

a strategy linked to the medium-term financial plan and steps were in place

to remedy this in the future.

The statistics with regard to reliability of service and the number of missed

bins, as stated in the Report, did not reflect that in totality the Council

successfully collected 99.86% of bins.

There was an Improvement Plan in

place including proposals to move from back door collection to edge of

curtilage.

While the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) as illustrated in the

Report were generally good, for example with regard to the percentage of

recycling of waste per head, the Head of Service suggested that the Audit

Commission had been inconsistent in using national and family group

comparators.

The Council had been scrupulously honest in reporting the

percentage of properties for which waste recycling was available.

In terms

of national comparators seven out of nine of the Council's BVPIs were

"good" or "better".

A systematic complaints procedure was already in place at the time of the

inspection, the reporting of which had been skewed by confusion over

responses from operators.

Audit Committee

9

26 September 2005

DEFRA funding had been awarded for pump priming the kerbside

collections, following which there had been increased revenue and staff

costs.

The most recent Capita report now showed the Council incurred

average costs.

In response to councillors' questions, the Head of Service stated that

suggestion boxes now existed to promote internal challenge and advice.

Regular team briefings and information sessions took place for recycling

staff.

Refuse Collectors had annual appraisals and a new Operations

Manager was in place but regular meetings were difficult because of the

task and finish nature of the work.

The Head of Service stated that the Report provided useful ideas for the

Service Improvement Plan, Sustainable Waste Management Plan and the

Joint Waste Strategy discussions currently taking place.

Mr Smith explained that the arrangements for audit and inspection differed

and recognised that it was disappointing for the Council not to recognise

itself within the Report.

It was for the Council to decide which actions to

take as a result of the Report.

15

Interim Report on the Council's Systems of Internal Control (SIC)

2005/06

The Committee considered Report No 230/05, which informed councillors of

the internal audit work of the Audit and Performance Division for the first

five months of 2005/2006 and on the adequacy and effectiveness of the

Council's systems of internal control during that period.

The Head of Audit and Performance stated that the format of the Report

was informed by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

(CIPFA) and helped the Council meet that organisation's Code of Practice.

Paragraph 3.1 of the Report stated that, in the opinion of the Head of Audit

and Performance, the overall standards of internal control were satisfactory

as informed by aspects of risk management (paragraph 5.3 of the Report)

and external assurance (paragraph 6 of the Report).

While the initial Audit Plan days were estimated with regard to the

information available then, various factors affected the rate and order in

which audit work was undertaken.

By the end of the year it was expected

that the planned audit and actual audit days would broadly balance out as

had happened in the past.

Paragraphs 4.5 to 4.13 of the Report detailed

the audit work undertaken.

The Head of Audit and Performance drew the attention of the Committee to

paragraph 4.6 with regard to the managed audit arrangement for the

Council’s Benefit Subsidy claim which would, it was hoped, save the

Council approximately £20,000 during the financial year.

A significant

amount of time had been spent providing guidance on the new Agresso

Audit Committee

10

26 September 2005

system during its installation (paragraph 10 of the Report) and steps were

being taken to reduce the EMAS Audit time (paragraph 4.12 of the Report).

Resolved:

15.1

That the Report be noted

16

Internal Audit Benchmarking 2004/2005

The Committee considered Report No 231/05 which considered the internal

audit work of the Audit and Performance Division in comparison with other

local internal audit departments.

The Head of Audit and Performance explained the formation of the Sussex

Audit Group (SAG) (paragraph 3 of the Report).

It was hoped additional

authorities would subscribe to SAG next year to make the benchmarking

exercise even more meaningful.

Appendix A to the Report compared the

Council's performance to that of the other SAG members.

Ways to improve

the percentage of the plan completed were being considered.

A target of

90% Audit Plan completion had now been set.

The Council's figures for

costs per chargeable day were the lowest within the Group by some way

and the Council's Audit and Performance Division produced the highest

output.

The Division might consider doing slightly less audits and allocating

more days to specific audits.

The Council also belonged to the CIPFA Benchmarking Club, comparisons

for which were listed in Appendix B to the Report.

Benchmarking itself

contributed to assessing the Value for Money of the service.

Assessment of

Value for Money was a key element of the Use of Resources assessment of

the Council to be undertaken by the Audit Commission.

The results showed

the Internal Audit service at Lewes was adequately resourced and achieved

satisfactory standards of output and efficiency.

Resolved:

16.1

That the Report be noted.

17

Date of Next Meeting

The Committee considered councillors' availability with regard to

subsequent meetings of the Committee.

Resolved:

17.1

That the next meeting of the Committee be held on 5 December 2005,

as scheduled and that the scheduled dates for the remaining meetings

for the municipal year be retained.

Audit Committee

11

26 September 2005

18

Vote of Thanks

Former Councillor John Best, who had ably chaired the Audit Committee in

the recent past, had recently resigned from the Council on grounds of ill

health and the Committee expressed its thanks to Mr Best for his work on

behalf of the Committee over the years and wished him well in the future.

The meeting ended at 3.50pm.

J M Harrison-Hicks

Chair