Agenda and minutes
Venue: Board Room 2 - Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ. View directions
Contact: Bryony Gibbs, Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 1355, Email: bryony.gibbs@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare, at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: There were no declarations of personal or prejudicial interests. |
|
Deputations Minutes: None received. |
|
Minutes of the previous meeting PDF 98 KB Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 29 September 2014 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting subject to the following amendments:
i. The second sentence of the penultimate paragraph of the item Statement of Accounts 2013/14 and External Auditors Report, referring to the level of reserves be deleted.
ii. It be recorded that during discussion of the Statement of Accounts 2013/14 and External Auditor’s Report, Mick Bowden (Operational Director, Finance) was asked to review the Pension Fund administration fee to identify whether it was appropriate and to confirm when the hedge fund fees had last been reviewed. It was agreed that this information would be circulated to the committee.
iii. It be recorded that, in discussing the internal audit progress report 2014/15, Graham Genoni (Operational Director, Social Care) was asked to expand on his comment that the performance of the department had improved by detailing what had improved with reference to Key Performance Indicators. Graham Genoni had agreed to circulate this information to the committee. |
|
Matters arising Minutes: The Chair advised that the risk register would be considered at the next meeting of the committee.
A member requested an explanation of XXX £11 million figure for 2013/14 compared to a total of £3 million for 2010/11. Simon Lane (Head of Audit) advised that he would seek an explanation from the appropriate officers of this difference. |
|
Internal Audit Progress Report PDF 339 KB This report provides an update on progress against the internal audit plan for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 October 2014. The report also provides a summary of counter fraud work for 2014/15.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair advised that on considering the internal audit progress report at its previous meeting, the committee had agreed to review the IT Contracts audit in greater detail. This audit had focussed on the operation of IT systems that had been procured and managed by individual council departments. The audit had examined a sample group of three different IT systems, Tribal, iCasework and OpenGalaxy, and had resulted in a limited assurance. Conrad Hall (Chief Finance Officer) welcomed the committee’s focus on the audit and advised that it had exposed a series of issues regarding departmental management of IT contracts. Issues had been found across each of the three systems examined and it was therefore considered likely that similar problems would be encountered in further examples of across the organisation.
Peter Balham (Head of Technical Services) drew members’ attention to the IT Contracts audit report circulated to the committee and summarised the key issues identified. He advised that it was not uncommon for complex organisations to require specific IT systems to support the work of different departments; however, it was important that processes were in place to ensure that the council’s IT infrastructure met organisational needs, complied with legal requirements and was not open to vulnerabilities. Referring to the six recommendations set out in the report and the corresponding action plan, Peter Balham explained that work was already underway to ensure that the IT Contracts register maintained by ITU included details of those contracts managed directly by individual departments, thereby allowing appropriate challenge to be applied by ITU, reducing the risk of service overlap and providing heightened corporate oversight. The recommendations also addressed issues of compliance with the Council’s procurement policy and procedures, low level data security vulnerabilities and a need for improved performance monitoring of the systems.
Philip Mears (Complaints Services Manager, Assistant Chief Executive’s Department) was present to discuss the outcome of the audit in respect of the iCasework system. He advised that versions of iCasework had been used by the council since 2000; it was used to manage corporate complaints, and more recently Freedom of Information requests and members’ case work. The contracts had previously been managed by ITU until 2012 at which time the system had become hosted by the supplier. Due to the long relationship with iCasework and the relatively small annual maintenance costs, it had become established practice to renew the contract annually. Philip Mears advised that he was in agreement with the recommendations of the report which would require more robust approach to the management of the contract.
In the subsequent discussion members queried how the implementation of the new version of iCasework had been managed, how long it had taken to integrate the old and new versions of the system and sought details of the training and cost implications of this process. A member advised that on speaking with the Senior Regulatory Service Manager regarding use of the iCasework system for managing licensing applications, worrying feedback had been received regarding difficulties with the ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
KPMG Annual Audit Letter PDF 476 KB This report summarises the key findings from the 2013/14 audit of the London Borough of Brent. The audit covers the audit of the Authority’s 2013/14 financial statements and the 2013/14 Value For Money conclusion. Minutes: Phil Johnstone (Director of KPMG) introduced the Annual Audit Letter, 2013/14 which summarised the key finding from the audit of the authority’s 2013/14 financial statements and Value for Money (VFM) conclusions. He stated that an unqualified opinion had been issued regarding the council’s financial statements on 30 September 2014, which meant that the statements were considered to give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Authority as at 31 March 2014. A few minor issues had been identified and these were detailed in the Annual Audit Letter before the committee. An unqualified conclusion on the Authority’s arrangements to secure value for money for 2013/14 was also issued on 30 September 2014. This meant that KPMG were satisfied that the council had proper arrangements for securing financial resilience and challenging how it secured economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Accordingly, KPMG had issued the Audit Certificate on 30 September 2014 to confirm completion of the 2013/14 audit. Phil Johnstone concluded his presentation by noting the final fee for KPMG for 2013/14 audit work was £266,120 compared to the planned fee of £263,520; this was a small increase, though accounting for the decrease in the fee for the grant certification work, there was a net decrease in the audit fee for 2013/14.
RESOLVED:
(i) That the Annual Audit Letter 2013/14 be noted.
(ii) That it be noted that the Audit Certificate had been issued on 30 September 2014. |
|
This report provides an analysis of the Audit Commission publication, “National Fraud Initiative - Outcomes and Information for Elected Members and Decision Makers 2012/13”1. This shows a comparison of results between the council and the CIPFA nearest neighbour councils.
Additional documents: Minutes: The committee considered a report and presentation on the National Fraud Initiative circulated to all local authorities by the Audit Commission. Simon Lane advised that the presentation was intended to give members an oversight of how the council compared to other local authorities for boroughs of similar size and demographics. The National Fraud Initiative was a sophisticated data matching exercise which drew on data from government departments, the local authority, NHS, police and other public bodies, to detect and prevent fraud. This exercise was routinely undertaken by the Audit Commission every two years. Highlighting the key outcomes of the most recent NFI exercise for Brent, Simon Lane advised that 16,000 possible matches were identified. Enquiries had been undertaken with regard to 490 (3 per cent) of these matches, against an average of 3,824 (19 per cent) at comparable authorities. Members were informed that it was considered that the average figure of 3,824 did not represent full investigations and rather indicated that various matches were ‘closed’ by other routine processing. Referring to the NFI outcomes detailed in the report, Simon Lane noted that the council was only just below the national average and though Brent’s performance required improvement, this outcome was indicative of well-targeted resources. Simon Lane concluded his introduction by drawing the committee’s attention to the questions posed by the Audit Commission for members’ consideration.
The committee agreed that the outcomes achieved against the number of matches investigated were good. A view was put that it would be helpful to know which authorities comprised the group against which the council was being compared. Simon Lane advised that details of the composition of the group could be provided, though it would not reveal which authorities were the highest performers. It was agreed that a request for this information could be made of the Audit Commission.
RESOLVED:
That the report and presentation on the National Fraud Initiative be noted. |
|
Any other urgent business Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64. Minutes: None. |
|
Date of next meeting The next scheduled meeting of the Audit Committee is scheduled to be held on 7 January 2015. Minutes: The committee noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 7 January 2015. |