Agenda item

Update on Shared Internal Audit & Investigation Service

To receive an update on the Shared Internal Audit & Investigation Service

Minutes:

The committee received a received a report, set out in agenda pages 33 to 66, which provided background to the Shared Internal Audit & Investigation Service.

 

The report outlined that this was the first shared service that Overview & Scrutiny had considered. The service had been operational for 7 years since 2014, and was a shared service between Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM). At the time of the service’s inception, both Authorities had internal Audit & Investigation services. Both services had suffered from being small and hard to recruit to due to the specialised nature of their work. Moving towards a shared service model had provided resilience for both Authorities, in addition to a wider pool of resources. It had been hoped to bring in other Authorities into the shared service, however the immediate drive was to provide resilience and other operational benefits. The Shared Service has undertaken regular contracted work for neighbouring Authorities.

 

Andrew Moulton, Assistant Director – Governance, attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

 

During the ensuing discussions, Members realised the following points and queries:

 

·           Was there a particular reason as to why other Local Authorities had not joined the Shared Service? Officer response - A number of lengthy discussions had taken place with our Berkshire neighbours over time, and there had been a variety of reasons as to why no other Authorities had joined the Shared Service to date. Opportunities were still being explored, and officers had not counted out the prospect of further Authorities joining the Shared Service.

 

·           Did WBC make money from contracted work? Officer response – Yes, these works generated an income stream for WBC.

 

·           Did the Shared Service work efficiently? Officer response – The team as a whole was very focussed on delivering a great service with good value for the Borough. This was a Council run service, however there was a commercial mind-set within the work that was carried out. In addition, the service was accountable to both WBC and RBWM Audit Committees, and any efficiency concerns would be considered by Members via these forums.

 

·           There were some concerns relating to how costs of other Shared Services were distributed amongst partners. Was this a concern for this particular Shared Service? Officer response – Officers were aware of these concerns, however in this case all costs and distributions were fairly transparent, and the Shared Service had met its core principles of providing operational efficiencies and resilience within the service.

 

·           It was noted that at the time of inception of the Shared Service, the responsibilities of the service were different. For example, the service was no longer responsible for benefit fraud.

 

·           The Committee thanked officers for providing the original business case, as this was useful background information for the Committee to consider.

 

·           Which Local Authorities had Wokingham carried out contracted works for? Officer response – WBC had provided support for the Bracknell Audit team for a number of years to ensure that they could complete their project plan. Support was also given to Rushmoor Council for a smaller number of days, however the total number of days was steadily growing. The unique selling point for the Shared Service was that it was run by a Local Authority, and could therefore relate to day to day issues.

 

·           Had the Shared Service looked at attracting other non-Berkshire authorities into the Shared Service? Officer response – Yes, any leads were pursued relating to this. A lot of thinking had to be undertaken as to how to best use the service’s pool of resources. The Covid-19 pandemic had shown that internal audit could be carried out virtually, and this had therefore opened up possible options within a wider geographical area.

 

·           Did the service actively look for business or wait for contact to be made? Officer response – Both avenues were used in this regard. Initially, more active methods were pursued, whereas now a slightly more passive and opportunistic approach was taken. There were no staff dedicated to marketing or business development within the Shared Service.

 

·           Relating to agenda page 35, what did LGAN refer to? Officer response – This information sought would be circulated to Members after the meeting.

 

·           The Committee stated that the risk register would be useful for the Committee to consider, as an example of the work carried out by the service. In addition, it would be useful for the Committee to see some examples of the external work carried out, which provided both an income stream for WBC and exposing the service and its staff to new tasks and skillsets. It was requested that the Head of Audit attend a future Committee meeting to provide some real life examples of different works carried out, in addition to explaining some of the differences between how the Shared Service operates compared to having a solely in-house service.

 

·           The Committee was of the opinion that the Shared Internal Audit & Investigation Service had always been a good example of good practice.

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)     Andrew Moulton be thanked for attending the Committee;

 

2)     The acronym LGAN be expanded and circulated to the Committee;

 

3)     The Head of Audit be invited to a future meeting of the Committee to provide some real life examples of different types of works carried out by the service, in addition to explaining some of the differences between how the Shared Service operates compared to having a solely in-house service.

Supporting documents: