Agenda item

This report details the work undertaken by Internal Audit in the period 1 January to 15 February 2025 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).

Mr Minesh Jani, Head of Audit and Risk Management, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·         In relation to the evidence presented to the auditors over the completion of the mandatory training and the inspection records available, the auditors were looking for evidence to show that all those involved in the operation of leisure centres had the mandatory training to carry out their operations. It was found that there were “gaps” in how this was being done. The service had said they would implement some of the recommendations by the end of March 2026.

·         The “not applicable” statements on page 54 of the agenda papers were audits which were not audits where opinions were being given on the systems of control. The audits were more like fact finding interviews or regularity audits.

·         A manager was assigned to the Council from Mazars who acted as the Council’s liaison between all the auditors and the Head of Audit and Risk Management. 

·         The Council was behind on its audits. It was at 68% in the middle of February 2026. By the end of March 2026, most of the work would be done and finalisation of reports would happen in April 2026.

·         As the Council’s long-term partner in the delivery of audit functions, Mazars had been asked to attend the Committee and outline any significant issues. They were to highlight to the Committee the areas where they thought the Council should be focused. From an internal audit perspective, it was important that the Head of Audit and Mazars come to the Committee and provide insight and foresight into what was happening in the organisation and the sorts of areas of risks that the Council faced.

·         A management response time of one month for audit reports was the average in most cases. About 75% of the management responses was quicker. This year, there had been at least two or three audit reports where Mazars had reported their findings. The service disagreed with some of the suggestions, so some of the delay was a period where discussions were taking place between the service, Mazars and officers to try to understand the nature of the risk and whether the auditors or the service needed to redefine the criteria. They needed to understand the nature of the risk very clearly to be able to come up with a proper solution.

·         The reason for the adequate level of assurance for maintenance contracts was because the recommendations were all in priority 2. The high priority findings had been classed as medium risk. Had any of those been a priority 1, it would have been classed as limited assurance.

·         The value of the contract was around £40,000. Mazars had reported that there was no signed contract, but throughout the audit there was within the HPCS system terms and conditions agreed by both the contractor and the Council which constituted a contract and money was paid against that. There were issues around how it had been procured, but in terms of the sort of service delivery, the quality, the inspections on the work and the value allowed the assurance to be classified as adequate.

The Audit Committee RESOLVED:

To note the audit coverage and follow up work completed.