Issue - meetings

(i)       in relation to section 2.3.2 of the report, and recommendations being designed to be rolled out across the Council thematically, to note that the Chief Internal Auditor had undertaken to build in any thematic work being done by officers as part of his regular update report to Committee;

(ii)       to note the Annual Report for 2024/25;

(iii)      to note that the Chief Internal Auditor had confirmed the organisational independence of Internal Audit;

(iv)      to note that there had been no limitation to the scope of Internal Audit work during 2024/25;

(v)      to note the outcome of Internal Audit’s self-assessment against the requirements of the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards; and

(vi)      to note the content of Internal Audit’s Quality Assurance and Improvement Plan.

The Committee had before it a report by the Chief Internal Auditor which presented the Internal Audit Annual Report for 2024/25.

The report recommended:-

that the Committee –

(a)      note the Annual Report for 2024/25;

(b)      note that the Chief Internal Auditor had confirmed the organisational independence of Internal Audit;

(c)      note that there had been no limitation to the scope of Internal Audit work during 2024/25;

(d)      note the outcome of Internal Audit’s self-assessment against the requirements of the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards; and

(e)      note the content of Internal Audit’s Quality Assurance and Improvement Plan.

In response to a question relating to the small number of recommendations which had not been accepted by management, therefore accepting the risk in not implementing the recommendations, and whether this was an acceptable way of working, the Chief Internal Auditor advised that Internal Audit adopted a risk-based methodology and therefore it was entirely accepted that not all recommendations would be taken forward.  He advised that the Chief Executive had specifically asked management to consider the Risk Appetite Statement and not simply accept all recommendations as a matter of course.  He explained that he highlighted any recommendations which were not accepted within his reports to Committee which management reasons as to why, and it would be for Members to determine whether they had required assurance from this.

In response to a question on the current team structure within Internal Audit, and whether officers considered there would be any challenges in future, the Chief Internal Auditor advised that the position was stable and he was content with the succession planning within the team.

In response to a question on page 177 of the report in respect of analysing results of audits, and the approach going forward, and whether this work could be reported to the Committee in future, the Chief Internal Auditor advised that he could build in any thematic work being done by officers as part of his regular update report to Committee.

Finally, in response to a question on Key Performance Indicators (section 4.1 of the annual report), the Chief Internal Auditor advised that he acknowledged that the KPIs were not in a good position, however they were not reflective of work on the ground and the good working relationship Internal Audit had with management.  He added that the KPIs were a focus in his team and his discussions with Directors and Chief Officers, but that the evidence base was available through the work undertaken by Internal Audit which always allowed him to form an audit opinion for Committee.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)       in relation to section 2.3.2 of the report, and recommendations being designed to be rolled out across the Council thematically, to note that the Chief Internal Auditor had undertaken to build in any thematic work being done by officers as part of his regular update report to Committee; and

(ii)       to approve the recommendations.

-       COUNCILLOR M.T. MALIK, Convener