(a)

the key issues arising from the audit included -

?

the draft financial statements were not provided in accordance with the agreed timetable and both these, and the supporting working papers, were not prepared to the standard that the auditor had come to expect from the Council;

?

a number of inconsistencies had been identified within the financial statements and between the financial statements and the working papers;

?

responses to audit queries were not dealt with in a timely manner, sometimes due to the unavailability of key staff during the audit; 

?

a number of key areas (eg accounting for schools, the landfill provision and the sale of the Civic Centre) did not reflect the on-going discussions the auditors had had with the Council throughout the year;

(b)

a number of adjustments had been identified which improved the presentation of the financial statements, although none of the adjustments had a material effect on the Council’s reported financial position as far as its General Fund position was concerned;

(c)

it was considered that the  Council should undertake a fundamental review of the process for the production of its financial statements and its subsequent audit, ensuring that there was sufficient time allowed for the completion of robust quality assurance arrangements;

(d)

based on the auditor’s review of the Council’s arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources, the auditor proposed to give an unqualified value for money (VFM) conclusion;

(e)

the Council’s original Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) submission to the Department for Communities and Local Government had been returned due to a number of errors and internal inconsistencies within it; following the completion of the audit, work would be undertaken on the WGA in accordance with the national timetable;

(f)

a number of control issues had been identified which included -

?

journals had not been authorised prior to processing;

?

bank reconciliations had not been performed or reviewed in a timely manner;

?

one expenditure had been authorised without the appropriate supporting documentations; (this was an isolated incident and there were no wider internal control implications for the Council);

?

a number of IT internal control issues that had been identified in the 2013/14 audit had not been addressed (the lack of formal reviews of information security policies and procedures, reviews of information security logs were not being formally, proactively and routinely reviewed and the intruder lockout settings were week).

(g)

six recommendations had been made (as detailed in Appendix A) which had been agreed;

(h)

the auditors anticipated that the Council would be provided with an unmodified audit report;

(i)

as this had been a challenging audit the actual audit fee would need to be considered.

(j)

the new office accommodation for the Tamar Bridge would be reviewed within the 2016/17 audit;

(k)

the cost of replacing the Tamar Bridge had been reduced by £80m (the Council’s share was £40m); the for formula used for this process was different for a toll bridge;

(l)

planning work was being undertaken to ensure that the Council would be able to submit its financial statements by 31 May for the 2017/18 audit;

(m)

work was being undertaken to address the issues relating to the IT internal control issues which had first been identified in the 2014/15 audit.