Minutes:
During the discussion the following points were raised:
· A Member asked a question regarding the table on 2.14 of the summary of the work programme, whether the percentage proportion is comparable to last year. He also asked if there are new audits that might be introduced as a result of local governance of whether it was too soon.
· The SIAS Officer responded with regard the table at 2.14 and the summary of the work programme that it is comparable. In terms of the reorganisation, it’s too early. It was discussed with Senior officers as part of their planning discussions. The plan is meant to be flexible so if something comes up they can reassess and risk score things to see what can be moved around.
· The Independent Person asked a question regarding Appendix C. There’s one strategic severe residual risk which doesn’t appear to have ever been audited and still doesn’t appear to be in the plan this year and there’s a couple in the next category down. He asked why such a severe risk has never been audited and whether there should be a reprioritisation to make it more of a priority.
· The SIAS Officer responded that there are a number of risks for WHBC in the plan and they wouldn’t be able to cover everything. Through discussions with officers, they look at where the work is going to be most useful. Also, what they are doing through their assurance mapping of the risk is looking at other sources of assurance so they can mitigate that through those. In terms of the non-housing property assets, there is the use of external consultants that they are aware of and that’s why they haven’t necessarily looked to do that. However, if there are areas the committee feel should be looked at, that’s a discussion they can have with senior management.
· The Executive Director (Finance & Transportation) added that there has been some focus work done on non-council and non-housing property assets. Whilst it has not been audited as a whole, there has been an audit for example on fire safety and things like that so there are some audits that link to that risk.
· The Independent Person responded that it would be good to bring those out in the paper just to show that they are properly being covered.
· A Member had a question around procedure and how it would work if Members did feel something should be reprioritised.
· The Executive Director (Finance & Transportation) recommended that in any scenario like this, if Members make their thoughts known, we can take it away and have a look at what controls we’ve got in place, what measures, what potential audit would cover and then bring back to the following committee to look at the plan.
· Members requested to document that officers in conjunction with the auditors will review whether the item around non-Council and non-housing property assets needs a higher priority, and Members will take their recommendation on that.
RESOLVED:
a) Members approved the proposed Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Internal Audit Plan for 2025/26, and;
b) Members noted the SIAS Internal Audit Strategy and to provide any comments prior to approval by the SIAS Board
Supporting documents: