The report of the Deputy Chief Executive andCity Treasurer / Head of Audit and Risk Management is enclosed.

The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer and the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management that provided a summary of the current implementation position and arrangements for monitoring and reporting internal and external audit recommendations.

The Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management introduced the key themes as set out within the report. The Chair then invited questions from the Committee.

Members sought an opinion as to whether those recommendations that were reported as being over nine months would be completed or whether the relevant Executive Member and Strategic Lead would be required to attend a future meeting of the Audit Committee to explain why they remained outstanding. A Member enquired if the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management was satisfied that the system for monitoring Outstanding Audit Recommendations was working efficiently. The Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management commented that the Committee had heard from the relevant officers and Executive Members in regard to the outstanding recommendations over nine months and further commented that this approach had assisted in keeping a focus and accountability on this area of work, noting that this approach had been supportive and helpful to the Audit Team.

A Member commented that whilst he welcomed the list of outstanding recommendations listed by length of time they remained outstanding, what was being done to recognise, and where appropriate prioritise new entries. The Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management acknowledged the comment and stated that consideration would be given to the format of the reporting and the allocation of a critical score against each entry to assist with the prioritisation of each individual recommendation.

The Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer informed the Committee that both herself and other Senior Management Team members did assess the critical levels of each recommendation when the reports from Audit were received. She further added that whilst the ambition was always to reduce the number of outstanding recommendations, the number of these was relatively low when compared to the number of recommendations made.

A Member sought an update on the recommendations that remained outstanding in relation to the Disability Supported Accommodation Services and Transition to Adult Services. The Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management stated that an audit opinion on Disability Supported Accommodation Services would be provided at both the March and April 2020 meetings of the Committee and this would further update Members on the implementation of these. He further commented that the report would be updated and any revised target dates for the Transition to Adult Services recommendations would be included when this information was next reported to the Committee.

The Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management responded to a question asked by a Member in regard to the implementation date of the Supervisions Google Form by advising that this would be checked and updated in the report for when it was next submitted to the Committee.

In response to a question asked by a Member in relation to the outstanding recommendations reported for Social Value and the associated KPIs (key performance indicators), the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management commented that a considered and robust response was received to the recommendations and he advised the Committee that a significant amount of work had been done in respect to the issues identified and he was confident that a number of the actions had been completed.

The Executive Member Finance and Human Resources addressed the Committee and stated that there were a number of measures implemented to monitor Social Value and KPIs. He described that an annual social value event was delivered each year by CLES (Centre for Local Economic Strategies) that benchmarked the authority against a range of metrics. He further described that consideration was being given to understanding and recording the wider benefits and societal outcomes of social value, including real stories and not to simply measure this activity in terms of a monetary value. He described that Manchester was pioneering the approach to social value and it was important to capture and describe the real stories and impact this approach had on the lives of residents and communities across the city. Members agreed that whilst important, social value should not simply be measured in the number of jobs and apprenticeships delivered and recognised the wider impact this approach had. The Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer stated that consideration continued to be given to the governance arrangements to promote, challenge and deliver social value via the Council’s procurement arrangements.

Decision

To note the report.