Agenda item

Internal Audit Update Report

Report of the Chamberlain

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Chamberlain that provided Members with an update of the work of Internal Audit that has been undertaken for the City of London Police since the last report in November 2017.

 

The Head of Audit and Risk Management explained to Members that the draft report on the 2016-17 planned internal audit programme was currently a work in progress.

 

The Head of Audit and Risk Management explained that considerations were being given to an audit of the Police Accommodation Strategy, though this was not mentioned within the report.  The Chairman asked whether this would create duplication of the programme management audit recommendations in this area.  The Head of Audit and Risk Management explained that the programme management audit was slightly different, and that this particular audit would be looking into the Police Accommodation Strategy in greater detail.

 

A Member conveyed their approval of the inclusion of the 3-Year City Police Audit Plan Strategy 2018-19 to 2020-21 at Appendix 3 to the report.  The Member explained that they were surprised not to see audit areas revisited cyclically over a 3-4 year period to monitor continuous improvement.  The Head of Audit and Risk Management explained that they were limited by a set number of audit days to complete their plan, but noted that the plan was flexible.  He explained that there was a desire to repeat particular areas, but also a desire to visit new areas that required focus.

 

A Member asked what the protocol was that assured the implementation of “RED” recommendations.  The Head of Audit and Risk Management explained that RED recommendations often involve suggestions that cannot practically be implemented in retrospect, though the aim is for these to act as guidance for future reference. Any actions made in response to these is then measured.

 

A Member asked if there was a provision for Members to proposed suggestions for new areas of focus.  The Head of Audit and Risk Management confirmed that this would be welcomed. 

 

A Member noted that any new areas suggested might displace existing areas, and that the total audit days available was set at 75 days, a reduction from 95 previously.  The Member asked how this number was defined, and the Head of Audit and Risk Management explained that this had been agreed with the City of London Police, but that there was no science applied to the number of days allocated and that it was only “correct” in line with Audit and Risk’s own professional experience and perception.  The Member also noted that the total days was likely higher than the figure shown when Corporate overheads are taken into account.  The Assistant Commissioner confirmed that the Integrity Standards Board looked at such internal issues and did provide some level of scrutiny.

 

A Member explained that it was somewhat concerning to see that there were those risks marked as “Accepted Risks”.  The Chairman explained that it was good to see that a certain level of risk was accepted when deemed correct to do so.  However, he noted that it would be beneficial to aid understanding by including a narrative note on why risks have been accepted. The Head of Audit and Risk Management confirmed that mitigating factors would be included in future for clarity. (3)

 

The Chairman asked for clarification of the Action Fraud/ Know Fraud Monetisation Project referred to for which Members had apparently approved £500,000 to commence work on, as mentioned within the table at row 13 of Appendix 4. The Head of Change Portfolio Office confirmed that she did not have the detailed knowledge of this Programme and would check with Head of ECD back in Force and feed back to Members. (4)

 

RESOLVED – That the report be received.

 

The Chairman and Members welcomed new external Member Andrew Lentin to the Sub-Committee for his first meeting.  Andrew thanked the Chairman for his introduction.

 

Supporting documents: