Agenda item

Ms Parker, Head of East Kent Audit Partnership, introduced the report noting that there had been seven internal audit assignments completed since the last committee meeting; four achieved substantial assurance, one achieved reasonable assurance, and one achieved a split assurance which was partly limited. There was one assignment for which an assurance opinion was not required, and five follow-up reviews had taken place.

During the introduction of the item, Ms Parker provided a brief comment regarding the follow-up to the street cleaning audit that was reported to the last meeting of the Committee. It was noted that EKAP had not previously conducted an audit of street cleaning and therefore did not have evidence to support the statement that the Council had most likely failed to achieve its corporate objective in this regard for the last 15 years. EKAP dealt with facts and evidence, and made conclusions based upon its own independent findings.  It was recognised that it had been poor judgment to simply quote a comment made by the Director of Operational Services from the 8 March meeting.

Mr Willis responded to Ms Parker’s comment with the following points:

·  TDC worked well with EKAP and valued its independence.

·  The acknowledgment that the comments regarding street cleaning follow up had strayed beyond the audit was appreciated.

·  TDC officers would respond positivity to the street cleaning audit, and all other audits.  It was recognised that EKAP added value to delivery of corporate values and priorities.

Councillor Campbell spoke under council procedure rule 20.1 to ask the following questions:

1/ Should the summary of findings for EKHR – Payroll and Benefits in Kind, include details of the limited assurance achieved? 

Ms Parker advised that there appeared to have been a typographical error, she offered to bring a corrected summary to the next meeting.

(Post meeting note – Upon further investigation the summary of findings was found to be correct, details of the limited assurance were detailed in the summary for benefits in kind.)

2/ What did PCI and DSS refer to in paragraph 3.3.a of the report, and why did this area continue to have a low assurance rating after follow up?

Ms Parker advised that there was a requirement for ongoing improvement in relation to data security and card payment protection.  The report highlighted that the Council’s approach to address this was felt to be less resilient than that of the other East Kent Council’s.

Mr Howes clarified that PCI-DDS stood for Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard

During consideration of the item it was noted that:

·  A management response to the high priority audit recommendations in relation to contract standing orders remained outstanding as at mid June. Ms Parker explained that the committee could request that a statement from the relevant officer be brought to the next meeting.

·  Project management retained a limited assurance after the audit follow up, however the Director of Operational Services explained that a number of new practices had recently been introduced and it was expected that these would be embedded by the end of the year.

·  There was a waiting list for allotments in the District. Ms Parker would advise Councillor Dexter if any of the Margate allotments were categorised as statutory.

Members noted the report.