To consider the
report of the Audit Manager
Decision:
To accept the report and support the agreed actions which have already been submitted to the managers of the relevant services. GwE (regarding travel costs) and Highways and Municipal (regarding overtime) to be called in to the Controls Improvement Working Group
Minutes:
The report of the
Audit Manager was submitted for information, which
provided the Committee with an update on the internal audit work for the period
between 3 February and 31 March 2020. It was noted
that 10 of the plan's audits had been completed.
It was explained that new arrangements had been established for
follow-up audits. In 2018/19, agreement had been reached
on 88 action steps to be completed by 31 March 2020. Following
a request for information and evidence from the relevant Units/Services on
action progress, it was shown that on 31 March
2020, there was acceptable implementation on 100% of the agreed actions to
mitigate high/very high risks, i.e. 11 from 11, and 72.73% of the agreed
actions to mitigate medium/low risks, i.e. 56 from 77.
It was added that acceptable action had been taken on 76.13% of
agreed steps, i.e. 67 from 88 agreed actions with progress made on 12.5%, i.e.
11 agreed actions. However, no response had been received
in relation to 11.36% of the actions, despite a request for information having
been submitted.
Reference was made to the audit of the GwE
travel cost claims process, which had received a 'limited' assurance level. The
purpose of the audit was to ensure that an efficient and effective process was
in place to claim travel costs via the self-service system, which reduced the
administrative load and kept the risk of loss by mistake or fraud at acceptable
levels.
A Member
highlighted concern, as the procedure for submitting applications via
self-service had reduced the administrative work considerably, that managers
were forgetting to check their staff's claims for travel costs. It was confirmed
that GwE management had committed to remind managers
to check claims in order to mitigate the risk highlighted.
Furthermore, it
was considered uncertain whether there had been consideration of value for
money in changing the official work locations of some GwE
staff. It was emphasised that there was
no flaw in the self-service arrangement in general, that managers had a
responsibility to check applications for travel costs, and that it was not an
administrative role. Regarding GwE specifically,
following Gwynedd Cabinet's decision to change the procedure for claiming
travel costs, GwE decided to change the work
locations of some staff. It was added that Internal
Audit was not convinced that remote work locations for staff provided assurance
of value for money.
It was reported that discussions had been held between GwE and Corporate Support at the time of changing the work
locations, and that GwE had justified the changes
before they were approved.
In response to the
above, it was suggested that GwE
should review the changes to work locations again.
In response to a
question as to whether it was commonplace to overturn / change the Cabinet's
decision, the Head of Finance noted that the Cabinet had established a travel
claims procedure based on work locations, and that GwE
had separately re-designated the working location of some staff. It was noted that the Cabinet's decision had not been
overturned and that this was not customary practice.
Reference was made to an audit of overtime payments made by the
Highways and Municipal Department, which was awarded limited assurance. The
purpose of the audit was to ensure that suitable arrangements were in place to
ensure that overtime payments were paid at the correct
rate and were appropriate.
Despite the
excellent work undertaken by the Highways and Municipal Department during the
period of the Covid-19 pandemic, concern was raised regarding the fact that an
additional £193k had been earmarked for its budget for 2020/21,
when the department had an existing overspend of £500k. It was enquired whether
there were plans to discuss the service's overspend,
and why there was no way of releasing the £193k to them at this point.
In response, it was highlighted that the Department was currently in a
transitional year due to changes made to the collection services; with regard
to the sum of £193k, it was highlighted that this was a sum included in an
application by Gwynedd Council for Government funding due to the crisis. It was noted that it
was necessary to weigh up the lost income, and to hold discussions with all
services in September to assess the sum, depending on what is approved.
In response to the
explanation, the observation to the effect that the Department was in a
transitional period and that changes were underway was accepted, but reference was made to several references in the report to staffing
arrangements in terms of sickness and absence.
An enquiry was made as to whether these matters
were given consideration during a transitional period and in plans for
rearrangement. With motivation to rush and historical problems with sickness
and absences within the service, it was asked whether
the arrangements were adequate; if these matters were not given attention, the
problems would continue. The observation to the effect that the Department was
in a transitional period was accepted; the service was overspending on a yearly
basis and therefore needed to be called before the
Controls Improvement Working Group.
In response to the
concern, it was noted that the Head of Highways and
Municipal was addressing these matters due to financial implications. Although
sickness and absences were factors in this service, it was suggested
that there was a need to examine the overtime policy and the ability to plan
work within normal hours in general.
In response, it
was proposed that it was necessary to investigate the inconsistencies in the
use of the policy across the Council, looking at how overtime was implemented
and ensuring that the Council was not open to a case by the Unions.
Bridges Work
Programme Scheme - limited assurance level. The purpose of the audit was to
ensure that suitable arrangements were in place to conduct inspections of
bridges under the care of Gwynedd Council, and that suitable arrangements were
in place to prioritise any necessary work to be carried
out on them and appoint contractors. Following a suggestion to call the scheme
before the controls improvement working group, the
Audit Manager noted that this work programme should be excepted as the audit
risk score did not reflect the work arrangement processes in place; rather,
what was reflected was the risks arising from budgetary limitations for dealing
with incidents.
In response to a
question regarding bridge maintenance in Gwynedd and how this was funded, the
Head of Finance noted that it was possible for capital schemes to be funded by
Welsh Government money. It was added that a long list of applications had been
submitted for schemes which were 'ready to go', with some bridges included on
the schedule of works. However, there was no certainty that the funds would be
available.
The members
expressed their thanks for the comprehensive report. It was
suggested that the services who had not responded to the actions should
be invited to the Committee in order to discuss the matters raised. In response
to the suggestion, it was considered that this would
be a long list of actions, along with the limited assurance level schemes. The
Audit Manager suggested that services could be given a
second chance to respond with evidence of the actions, and for the committee to
receive an update at the next meeting. Should no response
have been received by that time, then the next step would be to call
them before the Controls Improvement Working Group
RESOLVED: To accept the report and support
the agreed actions which have already been submitted
to the managers of the relevant services. GwE
(regarding travel costs) and Highways and Municipal (regarding overtime) to be
called in to the Controls Improvement Working Group
Supporting documents: