Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Councillors.

Apologies were received from Cllr V Slade and Samantha Acton.

To receive information on any changes in the membership of the Committee.

Note – When a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the relevant Political Group Leader (or their nominated representative) may, by notice to the Monitoring Officer (or their nominated representative) prior to the meeting, appoint a substitute member from within the same Political Group. The contact details on the front of this agenda should be used for notifications.

Notification was received that Cllr T Trent was substituting for Cllr V Slade for this meeting.

Councillors are requested to declare any interests on items included in this agenda. Please refer to the workflow on the preceding page for guidance.

Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.

In accordance with his previous declarations, in relation to Agenda Item 8 Cllr M Andrews reported for transparency that he was guarantor to his daughter’s tenancy for a house adjacent to Carters Quay.

In relation to Agenda Item 10, Cllr J Beesley reported a non pecuniary interest in that he was a member of Arts Council South West which he understood to have provided some grant towards the works undertaken for Poole Museum.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record for the Chair to sign.

To consider any outstanding actions from the previous meeting.

The completed actions on the action sheet were noted.

To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1

The deadline for the submission of public questions is midday on Friday 18 July 2025 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].

The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Wednesday 23 July 2025 [midday the working day before the meeting].

The deadline for the submission of a petition is Thursday 10 July 2025 [10 working days before the meeting].

The following public issues were received, with responses to public questions reported by the Chair:

Public Questions:

Agenda Item 13 – To consider and accept a report published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman 

Question from Philip Gatrell: 

SUBJECT: LGSCO (Ombudsman) Report 10th October 2022 regarding the Council’s Maladministration in respect of nursery school top-up fees. Upheld by the High Court judgement 7th February 2025 dismissing the Council’s application for Judicial Review challenging the Ombudsman’s report. 

QUESTION: COUNCIL’S COSTS 

Although the complainant Mr X must remain anonymous, the Council’s request for the authority’s anonymity in reporting was rejected by Judge Lock in judgment paragraphs 140 - 149. 

In any event the following information is not exempt at the Monitoring Officer’s discretion. It does not entail “personal information” or information subject to legal professional privilege. 

What is the total expenditure borne by the Council in respect of this matter - excluding recoverable VAT - analysed as - 

·       Legal fees and costs broken down by named individual legal advisers and advocates including counsel Peter Oldham? 

·       Court costs? 

·       Costs awarded to Ombudsman? 

·       Other costs and disbursements incurred including separately  Officers’ travelling etc? 

Response:

Unfortunately the Council is currently unable to provide a response to these questions as the costs negotiations are continuing between the respective Parties.

Agenda item 7 – BCP Future Places – Three questions from Ian Redman

Question 1 from Ian Redman:

As part of the FuturePlaces inquiry, will you investigate the £100,000 obtained from the Council's additional restrictions grant fund at the behest of the "BCP City Panel" in November 2021? This was paid to a private company to carry out a "city identity" study known as "the Big Conversation", and seems to have benefited FuturePlaces as well as the local authority - against Paragraphs 9 and 32 of the Government guidance on ARG funds. FuturePlaces stated, in its Poole Civic Centre business case, that the point of "the Big Conversation" was "for BCP Council to consider its brand proposition and to inform FuturePlaces' placemaking focus". What conflicts of interest existed between the BCP City Panel, ARG fund and FuturePlaces, and how did struggling local businesses benefit from this £100,000 spend, if at all?

Response:

The A&G Committee agreed investigation scope will cover the grant payment circumstances. The investigation will consider whether conflict of interest existed.

On a more general note but relevant to the questions posed, Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) monies were not solely directed to ‘struggling local businesses’. As detailed in other replies to Mr Redman and as verified by government officials from the department responsible for the grant, Councils were able to make local decision and certain grant schemes, ARG4 included, could be used for wider business support activities.

The Council determined in ARG4 that ‘Destination marketing and promotion’ and ‘Research and development’ were targeted sectors that would be supported to help wider local hospitality and tourism, and by attracting inward investment into the BCP area.    

Question 2 from Ian Redman:

External  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The Audit and Governance Committee requested an update on the issues at Carter’s Quay as part of the Corporate Risk Register.

This report outlines the due diligence undertaken prior to acquisition, the decision-making process and subsequent activity post-contract.

The Director, Investment and Development, presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

As requested by the Committee, this was a factual report which reviewed the timeline of key events leading up to the Council’s acquisition of Carters Quay, focussing on the governance and processes involved and the role of members and officers in decision making. Paragraph 7 of the report proposed a number of key considerations to support members in scoping an investigation, highlighting issues around time constraints, external pressures, senior engagement, due diligence and risk assessment. The next report would provide more detail on these issues. Any questions or points raised at this meeting would be noted and responded to in full in the next report. The Director thanked current and former colleagues and the senior leadership team for assisting her in highlighting the key issues.

The Chair welcomed members’ input in identifying areas where they felt further work may be required, ahead of considering the investigation already included on the forward plan for later in 2025/26. A number of points were raised in the ensuing discussion and officers had the opportunity to comment on these. The following areas of focus were put forward in relation to the scoping of the investigation:

·       Whether there had been sufficient investigation into the accounts of Inland Homes companies to ascertain their financial stability?

·       How was the valuation agreed: what was the process followed at the time, what were the aims and intentions at the time and had the process now changed?

·       More information to be provided on the three stages of payments and how they were arrived at. It was confirmed that the next report would include more information on the valuation figures and payments, some of which was not yet in the public domain.

·       The difference between the Cabinet decision on the deferred payment schedule and what actually happened and whether this had been fully understood?

·       The speed of the transaction and the apparent pressure to move quickly. Was this to do with the planning consent, were there political and/or external pressures? More understanding of the timings and the relationships between parties would be helpful.

·       In terms of governance, what should happen if an officer raises concerns but a leader / councillors decide to press on?

·       How thorough was the risk assessment in relation to the sale and was this fully understood/monitored?

·       Was the professional / legal advice and information received fully understood by officers?

·       Did the council consider the eventuality of insolvency in the market at the time? What was the degree of advice and due diligence re strength of parent company guarantee?

·       More information on what happened after 7 April 2021 to change the Council’s view that the scheme was not viable?

·       It was noted that changes to ways of working had already been made, however the next report could still consider recommendations for further improvements to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Head of Audit and Management Assurance will provide a verbal update on the progress of the investigation to date.

The Head of Audit and Management Assurance (HAMA) provided a verbal update on the progress of the investigation into BCP FuturePlaces.

The HAMA referred to the impact of his day to day workload in preparing the interim report to the Committee on 18 August 2025. His main concerns were around timing, the sheer volume and complexity of the material involved and the work required to process additional questions received and relate them to the agreed scope. Section 4 of the scope (detailed expenditure incurred by BCP Future Places) was well progressed. It was noted that most areas of the investigation could be dealt with in written report format, However, Members acknowledged that certain elements including financial information may be more easily understood in presentation mode with a flexible approach to how this was delivered.

The HAMA was asked about a particular email with financial information submitted by a member of the public. It was noted that some of the additional submissions were a result of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. All material was considered but this took time to assess in terms of the completeness of information included and how the information may have been interpreted by the sender. The HAMA advised that he was seeking legal advice on issues of confidentiality to individuals and companies. Members commented on the need to balance the wish to have as much information as possible in the public domain, while noting that there may be a need for exempt business to ensure all parties to the investigation felt able to contribute and the committee was fully appraised.

The HAMA confirmed that he was recording the direct costs of the investigation in terms of his time as the investigator. If required it may also be possible to estimate the indirect costs, for example input from other officers of the council.

The Chair was asked how she intended to deal with correspondence received and circulated to the committee today by an external party. Officers were not aware of the email and the Chief Executive expressed concern at the reported content of the email in relation to a named officer. Following a discussion about the issues raised and assurances provided to the officer concerned, the Chair advised that she would give the email due consideration before determining how to progress the matters raised and would advise the committee accordingly.

Information Governance update report to the Committee, providing performance management information.

The Data Protection Officer (DPO) & Team Leader, Commercial Contracts & Information Governance, presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The report provided an overview of information governance performance for 2024/25. The Council continued to make steady progress in information governance and was responding to increased demand while improving performance and embedding a culture of compliance. The Committee received a detailed update in relation to the following key areas: performance, in relation to information requests and disclosures; response rates; internal reviews; Information Commissioner’s Office enquiries; training; and projects.

The DPO and the Monitoring Officer responded to questions on the report. Members were advised that work was underway to develop training for councillors in alternative formats following a discussion at the Standards Committee. It was noted that officers may also benefit from alternative provision. Training on information governance covered issues such as data breaches. The team was proactive in supporting service areas where performance rates were lower. It was noted that Artificial Intelligence (AI) once fully developed could be used to increase efficiency. The process for councillors to respond to Freedom of Information and Subject Access Requests was confirmed. Councillors were legally obliged to comply with requests within the timescales provided, this was not something officers could do on their behalf.

RESOLVED that:

(a)  the Committee notes the Information Governance (IG) performance management information for the Financial Year 2024/25 (Q1 to Q4) contained in this report.  This includes requests received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations, Data Protection Act 2018 and other agency disclosure requests;

(b)  the Committee notes that currently a review is underway by  leadership team of the function of IG within BCP Council. 

Voting: Agreed with no dissent

This report sets out the monitoring of the Council’s Treasury Management function for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

A deficit of £2.1m was the final position as the Council continues to borrow to fund the accumulating deficit on its Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Borrowing is also at higher-than-expected interest rates due to volatility in current debt costs.

The report also sets out the Quarter One performance for 2024/25 which forecasts an underspend of £0.3m due to the Councils ability to borrow in the local authority market at lower than budgeted interest rate.

The Assistant Chief Financial Officer (CFO) presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'C' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The Assistant CFO referred to the economic background to the report and updated on the latest position regarding the Bank of England base rate. The report set out the monitoring of the Council’s Treasury Management function for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025. A deficit of £2.1m was the final position as the Council continued to borrow to fund the accumulating deficit on its Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Borrowing was also at higher-than-expected interest rates due to volatility in current debt costs. The report also set out the Quarter One performance for 2024/25 which forecast an underspend of £0.3m due to the Council’s ability to borrow in the local authority market at lower than budgeted interest rate. The Assistant CFO advised that a Treasury focussed training session for committee members was being arranged in consultation with the Chair.

The Assistant CFO was asked about the reason for the growing differential between base rate and PWLR rate and whether this was likely to narrow in the foreseeable future. He explained that Government debt was currently seen by the market as more risky than the bank rate. The forecast set out in the report assumed that the PWLR rate would fall over the medium term but at present the Council continued with its policy of short term borrowing.

RESOLVED that:

(a)  the Committee notes the reported activity of the Treasury Management function for 2024/25

(b)  the Committee notes the reported activity of the Treasury Management function for April to June 2025

Voting: Agreed with no dissent

To consider and recommend to Council the increased borrowing required for the Poole Museum project of £1.3 million.

It is for Audit and Governance to be satisfied that the business cases are robust enough to generate resources to satisfy the associated debt repayments.

The Assistant Chief Financial Officer (CFO) presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'D' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

In July 2023 the Committee agreed to reduce the Council’s debt threshold. It also agreed to strengthen the governance arrangements around any proposal to increase the debt threshold in future by requiring the Committee to consider the robustness of the ability of any significant new business case to service its debt obligations. In line with this decision the Committee was now asked to consider the business case to increase approved prudential borrowing to fund the Poole Museum project by £1.3 million. This was in relation to Cabinet and Council decisions in July 2025. The detailed financial forecast provided as part of the Cabinet report was included in the report to the Committee for reference.

The Assistant CFO, the Interim Museum Director and the Project Manager responded to questions on the report:

• On the level of confidence that borrowing repayments could be accommodated in the short term before income was realised, it was explained that repayments had been staggered and would increase over time. The project was considered to be affordable in the short and longer term. The business case had been conservative in estimating income and had overestimated in terms of costs and there was confidence that the visitor forecast and revenue potential would support the borrowing repayments. It was noted that the first week of partial reopening had been very successful.

• On how the increase in borrowing compared to the wider picture, it was confirmed that the increase was fairly insignificant within the Council’s overall debt and repayments.

• On the variances in fundraising, it was explained why the third party funding had been required to cover a new scope, but it was noted that this had still been beneficial in contributing to the original scope and business plan. The business plan had always included an assumption that borrowing may be needed to mitigate the risk of funding not being secured. It was noted that funding had been double counted in one instance due to clerical error.

• On whether the additional borrowing affected the external grants, Members were assured that there were no associated risks with partnership funding.

• On reasons for variances in expenditure, it was confirmed that this did include an increase in construction related costs, due to a number of factors affecting the industry resulting in significant prolongation.

• On business rates, a Member gave an example of where these had been successfully challenged elsewhere. It was noted that a potential rebate was under consideration, however Members were advised that this was a complex area.

• On the Museum project’s longer term sustainability, it was explained that National Lottery funding was supporting work to review the museum’s operating model and ten year plan and to develop a resilience strategy to ensure its long-term sustainability as a cultural asset for the community.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

This report updates councillors on the position of the Council’s Corporate Risk Register. The main updates are as follows:

·       All Corporate Risks were reviewed during the quarter;

·       The net scoring of risk CR16 - We may fail to secure of manage partnerships, miss out on associated funding and be unable to deliver services for communities, has reduced from 6 to 4 recognising the work underway to manage this risk;

·       Corporate risks CR21 - Impact of global events causing pressure on BCP Council & increase in service requirements and CR24 - We may fail to adequately address concerns around community safety, have been transferred to a new risk lead;

·       Corporate Risk CR24 - We may fail to adequately address concerns around community safety will be widened to include Failure to comply with the Prevent Duty;

·       Corporate Risk CR19 - We may fail to determine planning applications within statutory timescales, or within agreed extensions of time (EOT), will be removed from the Corporate Risk Register during the next quarter.

Material updates for this quarter are outlined in section 11.

The Risk and Insurance Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'E' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The report provided an update on the position of the Council’s Corporate Risk Register. All corporate risks were reviewed during Quarter 1. The report provided a summary of the changes in risk as set out in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the report with full details contained in Appendix 4. The report also updated on the progression of a new Risk Management Policy and the introduction of the new Risk app.

The Risk and Insurance Manager was asked if CR27 could include the expected completion dates and some more information on how the risk was managed. She also provided the following information in response to questions on the report:

• High level net risk and target risk scores which were shown as identical were being reviewed.
• Corporate Management Board (CMB) had agreed to add the Local Plan to the risk register in the next Quarter
• Housing Demand would be checked to see if it was already included in any existing risks or whether a new risk was required.
• In terms of what was being done to raise public awareness of the high level of risk associated with climate change (CR20), this would be checked with the risk owner and a response circulated.

The Chief Financial Officer explained that the generic risks identified by external auditor applied to all councils. Anything specific would be included as part of the annual audit and if required added to the risk register. He also explained why CR09 (ensuring balance budget) and CR23 (Dedicated schools grant) should continue to be treated as separate risks.

It was also noted that the fire safety issues raised by Internal Audit had been referred by Corporate Health and Safety and Fire Safety Board to CMB for consideration.

RESOLVED that the Committee notes the update provided in this report relating to corporate risks.

Voting: Agreed with no dissent

This report details progress made on delivery of the 2025/26 Audit Plan for the 1^st quarter (April to June 2025 inclusive). It also includes March 2025, which due to Committee dates, was unable to be included in the March 2025 quarterly update. The report highlights that:

·       28 audit assignments have been finalised, including 19 ‘Reasonable’ and 5 ‘Partial’ audit opinions, 1 consultancy assignment and 3 follow ups;

·       26 audit assignments arein progress, including 3 at draft report stage;

·       Progress against the audit plan is on track and will be materially delivered to support the Chief Internal Auditor’s annual audit opinion;

·       13 ‘High’ priority auditrecommendations have not been fully implemented by the original target date and 6 ‘Medium’ priority recommendations have (or will) not be implemented within 18 months of the original target date. Explanations from respective services have been provided and revised target dates have been agreed.

The Revenues Compliance Team continue to identify and recover Single Person Discount errors and have so far achieved an additional council tax yield of £135,144 since December 2024.

The Audit Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'F' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The report detailed progress made on delivery of the 2025/26 Audit Plan for the 1^st quarter (April to June 2025 inclusive). It also included March 2025, as this had come too late to include in the previous update. The Audit Manager drew attention to the five ‘Partial’ audit opinions as detailed in section 5 of the report and gave an update on their current status. Progress against the audit plan was on track and a provisional list of audits planned for Quarter 2 was provided. Members were reminded that the Committee was able to call in service directors to a future meeting to provide further explanation where recommendations remained outstanding.

The Audit Manager was asked about the process for referring outstanding recommendations to the committee. She explained that these were listed in Appendix 1 of the report in date order and that members may find it helpful to consider how long they had been outstanding. The Head of Audit and Management Assurance reported that explanations had been reviewed and were not deemed to be unreasonable. It was noted that a wider report on schools finances was being drafted which would update indirectly on the Linwood school deficit, the oldest recommendation on the list. The Chair indicated that the committee may wish to revisit the list of outstanding recommendations in the next quarterly report.

RESOLVED that:

(a)  the Committee notes progress made andissues arising onthe deliveryof the2025/26 InternalAudit Plan;

(b)  the Committee notes the explanations provided for non-implemented recommendations (Appendix 1) and that it can determine if further explanation and assurance from the Service / Corporate Director is required.

Voting: Agreed with no dissent

The purpose of this report is to formally present a report published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman on 8 May 2025, about Education and Children’s Services.  The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to take any action when a concern was raised when a nursery asked for a mandatory top-up charge for its free education places which it was not allowed to do.  The Ombudsman has found that the Council was at fault and has caused injustice to the parent, Mr .X.  The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has asked the Council to accept its findings.

The published report can be found at Appendix 1 to this report.

The Monitoring Officer (MO) presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'G' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Appendix 1 of the report presented a report published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman on 8 May 2025 in response to a complaint about the Council’s Education and Children’s Services. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to take any action when a concern was raised when a nursery asked for a mandatory top-up charge for its free education places which it was not allowed to do.  The Ombudsman found that the Council was at fault and had caused injustice to the parent, Mr X. The Ombudsman had upheld Mr X’s complaint and had asked the Council to accept its findings.

The MO explained the reasons for the delay between the Ombudsman’s report and the final adjudication. It was noted that one of the causes in not dealing with the original complaint correctly would be addressed through the Council’s new centralised complaints service. Members were advised that the Council had now updated all nursery providers. It was noted that the Department for Education (DfE) guidance had been revised in 2024. The Ombudsman was aware of the committee report and was positive about the proactive steps taken by the Council to address the issues raised in the complaint. The Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People, Education and Skills had been in contact with Mr X to provide assurance and it was noted that Mr X would be notified of the committee’s decision as soon as practicable. The MO confirmed that no responses were received to the statutory advertisement/publication of the report.

The MO suggested that the committee may wish to consider an item on the LGSCO’s and Housing Ombudsman’s dealings with the Council at an appropriate time, perhaps at the time their annual letters were received.  This was welcomed and it was also suggested that it would be helpful to provide a list of all bodies which local authorities were regulated by.

The Portfolio Holder explained that this had been a learning curve for the Council ahead of other local authorities experiencing similar issues regarding nursery providers and he reiterated that the government guidance had now changed.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

(a)  Considers and accepts the report published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman published on 8 May 2025, which appears at Appendix 1 to this report;

(b)  Approves the reimbursement to Mr X of any “general extras” fees he paid to the nursery from 12 February 2021;

(c)  Approves the payment of £200 to compensate Mr X for his time and trouble in bringing the complaint

(d)  Notes that an apology will be made to Mr X

(e)  Notes the Council has asked the nursery to change its pricing policy so that it is line with the Guidance and Provider Agreement;

(f)   Notes the Council has met with other FEEE providers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

An annual review and update of the Council’s Declaration of Interests, Gifts & Hospitality (for officers) Policy took place in February 2025 and the revised policy was approved by Audit & Governance Committee (27 February 2025).

Some minor changes were made to the policy as part of the annual evolution including adding directorship as a business role example that requires declaring if there is a business relationship with the Council and clarifying employees should not accept gifts from an organisation the Council is receiving services from. In addition, guidance has been improved on accepting incidental promotional items and the definition of hospitality has been clarified. Finally, guidance has been added on the Council receiving and giving prizes.

Internal Audit are able to provide reasonable assurance, through the completion of an annual exercise, that officers have generally made appropriate declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality with the exception of three officers who failed to declare other employment. Appropriate disciplinary action was taken. Further improvements to controls are planned to prevent recurrence.

The Head of Audit and Management Assurance (HAMA) presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'H' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Following an annual review and update of the Council’s Declaration of Interests, Gifts & Hospitality Policy for Officers, the revised policy for 2025/26 was approved by the Committee on 27 February 2025. The report summarised the minor changes made to the policy as part of the annual evolution and the improved guidance provided, including clarifications on business relationships, gift acceptance, and hospitality definitions. Bespoke training and awareness sessions continued to be delivered, including this year to Seafront Services, Investment and Development and Housing and the Council’s senior leadership network.

The report also summarised the work of Internal Audit to ensure policy compliance across the Council. Members were advised that on a risk basis this had focussed mainly on Tier 4 officers and above, with 100% compliance reported. The findings in relation to three officers who had been found to be working for two public bodies at the same time were noted in paragraph 12 of the report. The HAMA reported that his overall opinion was that the policy was fit for purpose, with a good level of awareness and compliance across the Council and 100% compliance at senior level.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

(a)   Audit & Governance Committee note the annual review of Declarations of Interests, Gifts & Hospitality by Officers (2024/25).

(b)  Note the opinion of the Head of Audit & Management Assurance that the Policy is fit for purpose and that there was a good level of awareness and compliance in 2024/25.

Voting: Agreed with no dissent

Following an annual review process, the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act (RIPA)and Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) Policy was updated, the Purpose Statement now includes reference to the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024, while Appendix A provides concise guidance on the use of technology, including artificial intelligence, in surveillance.

BCP Council has not made use of powers under RIPA or IPA during the 2024/25 financial year.

The BCP Council statutory return for the 2024 calendar year has been sent to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO).

The IPCO Inspection in July 2024 resulted in a letter from them stating that they were satisfied with ongoing compliance with RIPA and IPA and ensuring the risks or unregulated surveillance, particularly online is minimised.

The Head of Audit and Management Assurance (HAMA) presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'I' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The Committee was advised that following an annual review of the Council’s

use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) for 2024/25, it was confirmed that no powers under either act were exercised during the year. The RIPA/IPA policy had been updated to include references to the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 and had added guidance on the use of technology, including Artificial Intelligence, in surveillance. Members noted that covert surveillance remained a last resort, with proportionality a determining factor and only where the issue if proved would result in a minimum six month custodial sentence. The HAMA outlined the oversight and authorisation procedures in place. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) inspection in July 2024 resulted in a letter to the Council (included at Appendix A of the report) stating that they were satisfied with ongoing compliance with RIPA and IPA and ensuring the risks of unregulated surveillance, particularly online, was minimised.

RESOLVED that the Audit & Governance Committee notes that the Council has not made use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act or the Investigatory Powers Act during the 2024/25 financial year.

Voting: Agreed with no dissent

This report sets out the breaches of Financial Regulations (the Regulations) and four circumstances described in Part G, Paragraph 5 (para 5), that are now recorded within Procurement Decision Records (PDRs) (previously separately recorded as waivers) which have occurred during the 2024/25 financial year.

Circumstances described in Financial Regulations paragraph 5 are:

i.               Accelerated procurement where the Council would suffer significant negative impact if the full operational or strategic procurement approach is applied.

ii.              Unable to invite or obtain 3 bids or competition absent for technical reasons

iii.             Payments in advance for goods, services or works

iv.            Propose not to use an available Corporate Contract

An analysis of breaches and PDRs highlights the following:

Whilst no breaches of Financial Regulations is the preferable position, the relatively low number of breaches again suggests a good level of understanding of the requirements amongst managers and officers in the majority of service directorates and has resulted in general compliance with the Regulations.

Whilst full compliance can never be guaranteed and ‘under-reporting’ of breaches, in particular, is an inherent possibility, arrangements were in place to detect instances of non-compliance.

There were 212 PDRs approved during 2024/25 totalling approximately £200m and of these 28 were circumstances as described in Financial Regulations Part G Paragraph 5 which require reporting to this committee.

An effective and transparent breaches and PDR governance process maximises the chances of the Council achieving value for money and complying with UK Procurement Legislation (Public Contract Regulations 2015 & Procurement Act 2023).

The Head of Audit and Management Assurance (HAMA) presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'J' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The HAMA explained why breaches of Financial Regulations (the Regulations) should be avoided and why Procurement Decision Records (PDRs) should be used. He assured committee members of the full and frank nature of his report. Whilst it was preferable for no breaches of the Regulations to occur, he would find it questionable if no breaches were reported in a council the size of BCP Council. Twelve breaches had been identified during 2024/25. These were set out in section 4 of the report.

The HAMA reported in more detail on the reasons for the breach listed as BR1, where a significant amount of expenditure and agency appointments had not been subject to the required completion of PDRs. He outlined the actions taken to rectify BR1 and the other breaches listed in the report. Only one further similar breach to BR1 (BR11) had since been identified. The Committee was advised that 212 PDRs were approved during 2024/25, of which 28 were for some form of exception where the usual process was not followed for the reasons provided in paragraph 15 and appendix 1 of the report.

The HAMA was asked about officer training on the PDR process, with points raised about the need to ensure this was fit for purpose, well understood and led from a senior level. Members were assured that standard and targeted training was provided and that the general requirements were well known across the Council, as reflected in the relatively low number of breaches identified. It was noted that failure to complete a PDR once a contract had expired was the most common breach. Training aside, it may be that a very small number of errors would always occur considering the sheer volume of procurements across such a large spend base. Failure to comply could also be addressed through disciplinary channels. It was confirmed that there was no suggestion that any of the breaches had resulted in incorrect expenditure, rather it was the internal governance process of not completing the requisite PDR which had not been followed.

Members were updated on the internal Procurement and Contract Management Board which had been set up in 2024 to ensure a greater level of consistency and best practice. One of its roles was to review all breaches to consider whether any changes to procedure were required and/or further training needed. The Chief Financial Officer suggested that he ask the Board to reflect on the discussion points raised by the Committee.

Officers also responded to questions on the use of historic suppliers once a previous contract had ended and on existing and emerging technological solutions in relation to procurement procedures.

RESOLVED that the Audit & Governance Committee notes the breaches of Financial Regulations and relevant Procurement Decisions Records that occurred during 2024/25.

Voting: Agreed with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

It is the opinion of the Chief Internal Auditor that during the 2024/25 financial year:

·       arrangements were in place to ensure an adequate and effective framework of governance, risk management and control (internal control environment), and that where weaknesses were identified there was an appropriate action plan in place to address them;

·       the systems and internal control arrangements were effective and that agreed policies and regulations were generally complied with;

·       adequate arrangements were in place to deter and detect fraud;

·       there was an appropriate and effective risk management framework;

·       managers were aware of the importance of maintaining internal controls and accepted recommendations made by Internal Audit to improve controls;

·       the Council’s Internal Audit service was effective and compliant with all regulations and standards as required of a professional internal audit service;

·       the arrangements, in respect of the Chief Internal Auditor, were consistent with all of the five principles set out in the CIPFA publication “The Role of the Head of Internal Audit in Public Sector Organisations”.

The Head of Audit and Management Assurance (HAMA) presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'K' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The report set out the formal opinion of the Chief Internal Auditor on the 2024/25 financial year. The report provided a consolidated summary of the issues raised in the quarterly reports submitted to the Committee during this time. The Chief Internal Auditor’s opinion was set out in the executive summary of the report and concluded that the Council maintained an adequate and effective framework of governance, risk management, and internal control. While some areas of weakness and non-compliance were identified, appropriate action plans were implemented and all audit recommendations were accepted by management. A rigorous follow up procedure was in place to confirm that all recommendations had been implemented. The report referred to audits planned and completed and provided further detail on those audits where a partial assurance had been given (as previously reported to the committee).

The HAMA placed on record his thanks to the internal audit team for their dedication, hard work and professional diligence. The Chair endorsed his comments and gave thanks on behalf of the committee in appreciation of the huge amount of work undertaken.

RESOLVED that the Audit & Governance Committee notes the Chief Internal Auditor’s Annual Report and Opinion on the overall adequacy of the internal control environment for BCP Council.

Voting: Agreed with no dissent

Good governance is ultimately the responsibility of Council as the governing body of BCP Council.

This report provides assurance as to the way in which the Audit & Governance Committee has discharged its role to support Council in this responsibility. In addition, the report underpins the Annual Governance Statement, which is approved by the committee.

The attached report at Appendix A, Annual Report of the Audit & Governance Committee 2024/25, demonstrates how the committee has:

·       Fulfilled its terms of reference;

·       Complied with national guidance relating to audit committees; and

Contributed to strengthening risk management, internal control and governance arrangements in BCP Council.

The Chair presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'L' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The Audit & Governance Committee Annual Report 2024/25 circulated at Appendix A provided assurance that the committee had effectively supported the Council in maintaining good governance. The report outlined how the committee fulfilled its terms of reference, complied with national audit committee guidance and contributed to strengthening risk management, internal control, and governance across the Council. It included a foreword, an overview of the committee’s activities and a forward-looking section, along with the committee’s terms of reference. The report underpinned the Annual Governance Statement and was recommended for approval ahead of its submission to Council in October 2025.

The Chair highlighted the use of an annual report to Council as a positive tool to keep all councillors informed of the committee’s work and enable further dialogue.

RESOLVED that that the Audit & Governance Committee approves the annual report prior to its submission to Council on 14 October 2025.

Voting: Unanimous

The Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015* require councils to produce an Annual Governance Statement (AGS) to accompany its Statement of Accounts.

The AGS concludes that BCP Council “has effective and fit-for-purpose governance arrangements in place in accordance with the governance framework”.

After considering all the sources of assurance (for governance arrangements), BCP Council Corporate Management Board identified that the following significant governance issues existed:

·       Dedicated School Grant

·       Department for Education Statutory Direction for special educational needs and disability (SEND) services

·       Mandatory Training

An action plan to address these significant governance issues has been produced and is being implemented. An update against the action plan will be brought to Audit and Governance Committee in January 2026.

*and as amended by the Accounts and Audit (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Only minor amendments to the Local Code of Governance have been necessary to keep pace with the Council’s changing governance arrangements.

The Audit Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'M' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The report set out the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2024/25 which was required to accompany the Council’s Statement of Accounts. The report also detailed the minor amendments made to the Local Code of Governance to ensure it was kept updated. It was noted that the draft AGS had already been published as part of the public inspection of the accounts prior to a final version being submitted to the external auditor. The AGS concluded that the Council had effective and fit-for-purpose governance arrangements in place in accordance with the governance framework. The Committee was advised of the process by which the Council’s Corporate Management Board (CMB) identified three significant governance issues, namely the Dedicated Schools Grant, the Department for Education Statutory Direction for special educational needs and disability (SEND) services and Mandatory Training. An update against actions being implemented to address these issues would be brought to the Committee in January 2026.

The Audit Manager provided an update on two issues removed from last year’s AGS and explained why a fourth issue from this year’s AGS relating to housing delivery budget monitoring had been removed. It was noted that other potential issues had also been considered and discussed by CMB but not included. These were detailed in the report for transparency. Members were asked to note typographical amendments to be made to the final AGS, in paragraph 14 of the report to replace the word ‘four’ with ‘three’ and in Table 1 of the AGS to read ‘Dedicated Schools Grant’.

Committee members focussed their discussion on actions to address the issue of mandatory training. One suggestion was for this matter to be raised with Group Leaders. The Monitoring Officer gave an update on recent discussions at the Standards Committee to progress the training programme for councillors. There was now a standing item on that committee’s work programme to review progress and it was noted that the statistics were improving. Standards Committee was also looking at how to improve the accessibility and quality of the training provided. The Chair welcomed the suggestion that the Chair of the Standards Committee be invited to a future meeting to update members on progress.

The Chief Executive highlighted the importance of cybersecurity training in reducing the likelihood of erroneously causing a security breach and the  serious consequences for the Council when mistakes were made. Committee members asked that a reminder be sent to all councillors advising them what to do/what not to do and who to contact should they receive an email which raised any concerns. It was noted that training statistics currently included staff who only worked for the Council a few days of the year and that this was being looked at. A member questioned the volume and value of some of the training required. The Chief Executive explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

This report sets out the list of reports to be considered by the Audit & Governance Committee for the 2025/26 municipal year in order to enable it to fulfil its terms of reference.

The Chair drew attention to the Committee’s forward plan for 2025/26, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'N' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The Chair referred to factors to consider in scheduling the report on Carters Quay. It was noted that the timing of the final report on FuturePlaces, currently listed as either September or October, may depend on the outcome of the August meeting. Although the Carters Quay report was led by the Director of Investment and Development it would require the support of Internal Audit. Items already scheduled for committee dates on the forward plan were also noted. Members exchanged views on striking the right balance between ensuring there was sufficient officer capacity and undertaking the investigation in a timely manner. It was concluded that timing of the Carters Quay report be at the discretion of the Chair and Vice Chair in liaison with the relevant officers, with committee members to be kept informed.

The Chair reported that she had held an introductory meeting with the external auditor who had offered to attend a future meeting to talk about committee engagement. It was also noted that the Monitoring Officer would liaise with the Chair regarding the scheduling of the Ombudsman report as discussed in agenda item 13.

RESOLVED that the Audit & Governance Committee approves the Forward Plan for 2025/26 as set out at Appendix A and updated in the discussion.

Voting: Unanimous