Agenda item

This report sets out the findings and recommendations from the 2014/15 review of the effectiveness of the system of internal audit in Surrey County Council. 

Declarations of interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Chief Internal Auditor introduced the report and confirmed that the review had been light touch this year.

2.    In response to a query, officers explained that the new locked print facility was intended to be implemented within the next year as it was a saving within the Medium Term Financial Plan.  Internal Audit would be a priority team in the roll-out.  In the interim, it had been reinforced to the team to take care when printing confidential material.

3.    A substitute Member queried whether the profile of Internal Audit had improved since he had been a member of the committee a few years previously.  The Chief Internal Auditor confirmed that she now sat on the Statutory Responsibilities Network which met fortnightly.  The membership consists of the Chief Executive and other very senior officers.  This was an opportunity to air concerns from Internal Audit’s point of view.  It also allowed for the development of closer working relationships.

4.    Services in general were now more prompt in responding to audits and management action plans.  There were still some audit recommendations that Internal Audit does not feel are addressed promptly enough.  However, some of these are by nature difficult to implement quickly. 

5.    There was concern expressed about the Chief Internal Auditor reviewing her own service.  It was also suggested that members of Audit & Governance Committee need to spend time in the field seeing audits taking place.

6.    The Chief Internal Auditor reminded the committee that last year an officer from outside the team had undertaken the annual review and the previous year an external organisation was commissioned to undertake the review.  The regulations require an external assessment only once every four years and a self-assessment is sufficient during all other years.  A Member suggested that next year the commissioning of an external organisation be considered again so asto protect the service from criticism. 

7.    In response to a question about the service’s independence, the Chief Internal Auditor reminded the committee that this was Internal and not External Audit.  The service was as independent as an internal audit team could be.  Internal Audit sits in the Chief Executive Office directorate and is therefore separate from Finance and the key financial systems.  She has regular one to ones with the Chief Executive.  It was also important to have personal integrity to say what needs to be said.  The Chairman reminded Members that the committee had pushed to have a direct reporting line from the Chief Internal Auditor to the Chief Executive.  He was satisfied that the reporting line was now appropriate.  He also stressed the direct line between the Chief Internal Auditor and the Chairman of Audit & Governance Committee.  The Chairman informed the committee of a Grant Thornton report he had read on the impact of internal audit departments in the public sector and offered to share it with the other Members (Recommendations tracker ref: A13/15).

8.    The Chief Internal Auditor clarified that there are no set timescales for follow-up audits.  It is dependent on management action plans and timeframes attached.

9.    The Chief Internal Auditor suggested that arrangements with Select Committees were positive.  She was not aware of any other local authorities where internal audit reports are automatically referred to Select Committees for review.

Actions/Further information to be provided:

The Chairman to share with the committee the Grant Thornton report on the impact of internal audit departments in the public sector.

RESOLVED:

That the committee NOTES the report.

Committee next steps:

None.

Tim Evans left the meeting at 11.50am.