Agenda item

1.            The report was introduced by the Head of Internal Audit, Mr Jonathan Idle.

2.            In answer to questions and comments from Members, it was said that:

a)            External work was undertaken for two main reasons: first to bring in extra income to the Council as reference in the Governance report at the July Governance and Audit Committee meeting and second it is an important part of retaining good quality staff by providing developmental opportunities.

b)            In relation to management actions following Internal Audit reports the information was shared during the September Committee meeting by the Chief Executive. The implementation levels were previously highlighted in the July Committee meeting and since then input towards assisting Directorates and monitoring had increased.  Ongoing monitoring continued to take place and the next full report would be in January 2025.

c)            Entry and Exit System report was in draft form and would be updated and brought to the Committee now that final discussions had taken place.

d)            In relation to the issue surrounding Internal Audit (Counter Fraud separate) capacity and workload, at present no business case had been put forward to support the employment of new staff 

3.            In relation to the Direct Payments audit report, Mr Richard Smith (Corporate Director of Adult Social Care and Health) confirmed that he, Mr Idle and Mr Albiston (Director of Adult Social Care and Health) agreed that the report was accurate and provided a fair and balance response to the audit. In relation to the issue surrounding staffing, he confirmed that the staffing level present in his teams were under resourced.

4.            Mr Smith commented that direct payments provided a better outcome for people by allowing them a greater level of control and this reflected in a reduced number of safeguarding responsibilities.

5.            Ms Paula Parker (Head of Portfolio Management) provided a further update of actions since the audit; she commented that work had started on updating the Direct Payments policy, with a view to coproduce it alongside with those people who use and benefit from it. Part of this would include obtaining feedback from the individuals who were in receipt of the direct payments.

6.            Ms Parker acknowledged the pressures within the Adult Social Care team’s staffing and confirmed that the department was about to mobilise a new contract for the Kent Card and resources around supporting the work for this, would need to be managed. She confirmed that 94% of reviews conducted by her team were currently up to date.

7.            The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health confirmed that Direct Payments were a regular item in the Directorate meetings. The policy on direct payments and accompanying forms (which potential users are required to complete) are complex and additional thinking was required to make a step change. He confirmed that considerable time had been spent on this.

8.            The Interim Corporate Director for Finance replied to an earlier suggestion made by a Member, that the implementation of recommendations should be a standing item; he commented that monthly meetings took place and that the Internal Audit Team look comprehensively at how a recommendation had been implemented. By way of a compromise, it was suggested that a report could be made available to the Committee every 6 months as a way forward.

9.            In reply to a Member’s comment, Mr Smith stated that financial constraints and the operational environment required the directorate to be transformational in delivering their work and whilst he acknowledged the target was ambitious, Kent remained above the national average. Trends indicated that direct payment funds are decreasing and so the emphasis was on preventative work, rather than working with people at the point of crisis. Direct payments were considered in a wider context, often along some colleagues in other directorates.

10.         In reply to a Member’s comment, Mr Smith commented that the service would be looking to maximise the use of AI (Artificial Intelligence) where appropriate, but this would be fine balance as previous feedback indicated that service users preferred face to face engagement.

11.         In response to a question by a Member, Ms Melisa Stewart (Principal Auditor) commented that the sample size varied, depending on the grant requirement. It also depended on the sampling methodology used.

12.         In answer to a Member’s question, Mr Idle stated that it was dependent on the size of grant and requirements of relevant Government Department as to whom signed off the recommendations. In some cases, this was the relevant Corporate Director, in others it could be the Section 151 Officer.

13.         In answer to the Chair’s question regarding the Entry Exit System and the utilisation of reserves (page 33 of the Audit report) the Interim Corporate Director for Finance acknowledged the Council’s reserves were not at a level they wanted, however, it also needed to be accepted that the reserves could be utilised for reasonable reasons.

14.         In reply to a Member’s question regarding the Entry Exit System, Mr Rayner (Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance) indicated that the report was prepared at a specific point in time and it was his understanding that the system had been indefinitely postponed, however, as things have now moved on, the Council needed to wait for further information regarding the intention of the path of the Entry Exit System in the way that the strategy is implemented.

15.         It was pointed out by a Member that some reports did not contain dates to indicate whether they were the most up to date version of the document and it would be helpful if these could be included as matter of course.

16.         RESOLVED that Members noted the Internal Audit Progress report for the period of July 2024 to November 2024.