This report details the work undertaken by Internal Audit for the period 1 September to 30 October 2024 and focuses on progress on internal audit coverage relative to the approved internal audit plan, including the number of audit reports issued and finalised – work undertaken by the external provider (Forvis Mazars).
Minutes:
Mr Minesh Jani, Head of Audit & Risk Management, introduced the report.
The meeting heard:
· The My Conversations process being recorded on the system was to be across the organisation. The My Conversations process may be taking place currently, but they were not logged on a system. Auditors had suggested that there needed to be a regime in the absence of a formal recording for that information to be captured. This was crucial in understanding how effective the Council was in appraising staff on a regular basis. Haringey had been benchmarked against other authorities and it was found that doing it would improve management arrangements or staff performance.
· The responsibility for making sure that staff were formally appraised rested within the directorates. However, there was a HR function which straddled the whole of the organisation and this applied a second line of defence. This was to ensure that where compliance was not as strong as it should be, efforts could be made to ensure that compliance occurred.
· The responsibility for setting the standards for the organisation rested with HR and in that regard, this audit and the recommendations raised in it had been addressed to HR.
· The agency element of the workforce was not part of the audit. A separate audit had been done in that area. It was really important as an organisation that staff resources were used as effectively as possible. Regular conversations through the process was an important way of making sure that staff were fully appraised on what the Council was trying to achieve, what the goals of the organisations were and aligning them to the work that they were doing and feeding back regularly regarding progress. Improvements in that area would lead to a host of outcomes.
· A number of London boroughs were finding it difficult to position themselves to be able to deal with the new Procurement Act. It was likely that there would be a period of settling in for a year or so. The audits were seen as a means of making sure that the Council was as prepared as possible. Hopefully though the work, the service could be encouraged to make the necessary progression by the time the Council needed to settle into the Procurement Act fully.
· The Council had accepted all the recommendations that had been put forward in the report. The Council was not where it needed to be, particularly in terms of the training. The Strategic Procurement team was mobilising itself for the Act. They were getting themselves up to speed with what was required. Not all procurement activity happened within that team so it was important to identify the right people across the organisation to ensure all efforts were made achieve compliance. A full update could be provided at one of the upcoming meetings of the Committee.
· There were three elements of procurement that the Committee needed assurance over; system implementation, compliance with the Procurement Act and a general assurance around procurement processes and contract management processes.
· A report on the Procurement Act update to the Committee could also involve an update on improved governance on contracts.
· A query was raised regarding how the Committee would become aware that contract management had improved. In response, the meeting heard that the Council collected a lot of data on its contracts, mostly compliance data. However, once management had responded with their suggestions, Internal Audit would provide assurance.
· An action would be placed in the Action Tracker to monitor the ‘limited assurance’ status regarding Procurement.
· Panacea was a new procurement system the Council was looking at as a solution.
RESOLVED:
To note the audit coverage and follow up work completed.
Supporting documents: