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 Insert date [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Insert date [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Insert date [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The Committee was advised that there were 4 public questions and 4 public statements.
Public Questions from Mr Ian Redman (on Agenda item 12)
Question 1..
What arrangements were in place to detect instances of non-compliance?
Response:
A three line defence detection system applies:
First line - Service Directors and managers are responsible for reporting all known or discovered breaches of the Financial Regulations to the CFO as soon as they become aware of such instances. Service Directors may be required to supplement the CFO’s annual report on breaches to the Audit & Governance Committee with a more detailed report explaining the circumstances of the breach and the remedial action taken or planned by way of remedy.
Second line - the Strategic Procurement Team (SPT) may become aware, as the Council’s centre of expertise, of breaches and will liaise with Service Directors to ensure breaches are reported.
Third line - Internal Audit identify and report breaches through the course of their work.
Breaches of financial regulations are reported in the financial year they are found and reported to A&G Committee in that year.
Question 2.
When should a Procurement Decision Record get approved by Strategic Procurement and CFO, before or after the purchase has been made?
Response:
Fundamentally Procurement Decision Records (PDRs) are approved before progressing beyond defined decision points. The decision to award a contract (or issue a Purchase Order) is an example. Additionally, for more complex and significant procurements there are further controlled ‘gateway’ decisions at Define and Procure. The Define decision ensures that forecast benefits justify the investment of time and the Procure decision sense checks that we are fully prepared to issue tender invitations.
However, it may be necessary to purchase some goods or services in an emergency and that may mean the Procurement Decision Record has to be approved after the purchase has been made. These would be the exception rather than the rule.
Question 3.
As mentioned in a previous A & G meeting, on what date will the council start publishing PDRs, will this be on BCP's website and will this be before or after they have been approved?
Response:
The Council takes its’ commitment to being open and transparent to the public very seriously, at the same time the Council also considers factors such as legislative or statutory requirements and resource required to redact sensitive or personal information.
There is no requirement or intention to start publishing Procurement Decision Records. PDRs are a part of an internal controlled process. PDRs include commercially sensitive information.
Instead, all details of contracts awarded by the Council can be found on the Contracts Register, available on the BCP Council website and which must be published.
Public question from Mr Alex McKinstry on Agenda item 6.
Question
Following the external auditor's concerns about FuturePlaces: can the Chair explain why I was not provided with that company's monthly management accounts during the recent statutory inspection period. (Indeed, I was not provided with any records I requested, despite the assertion in tonight's draft minutes: "The finance team will look to respond as timely as possible to requests ..." As this is a statutory breach, and as a similar breach occurred in 2022, I have asked the external auditor to consider issuing a public interest report.)
Can you also confirm the start and end dates for which management accounts were forwarded by FuturePlaces to the Council, including dates of any hiatuses. These accounts were meant to be forwarded monthly under 3.1.1 of the shareholder's agreement, but as the external auditor notes at page 50 of tonight's reports pack, the company was acting in breach of that agreement.
Response:
A response to Mr McKinstry queries will be sent in due course answering the queries in full. However, in response to the specific question about FuturePlaces Ltd.
As per the National Audit Office Guidance which covers the rights of the public under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, “Your inspection must be about the accounts, or relate to an item in the accounts.”
FuturePlaces Ltd as a subsidiary of BCP Council has never been included in any of its published draft and audited statement of accounts. The company is not consolidated as part of the councils group accounts on the basis of being immaterial.
We were unable to ascertain specifics in regard to the management accounts question as all staff involved in the process have since left the council and company.
Chair to deliver replies to the questions.
NOTE: The Chair provided an updated response to Mr McKinstry’s public question at the Audit and Governance Committee on 17 October 2024.
Statement 1 from Mr Alex McKinstry
The report for Item 14, paragraph 23 (p. 237), lists several governance issues which, while serious, aren't sufficient to feature in the draft Annual Governance Statement. I contacted the internal auditor suggesting some additional issues. These mostly concerned the councillors' Code of Conduct:
It's possible these matters are being pursued by the Constitution Working Group, since the Standards Committee itself heard (16 January) how its processes are ripe for "review". Given the resurgence in councillors complaints alluded to elsewhere in Paragraph 23, I hope that any such review will shortly fructify.
Statement 2 from Mr Alex McKinstry
The most alarming aspect of Paragraph 23 is the inclusion of "Corporate complaints and information governance" as a concern - in other words, actual governance processes have degraded to the point where they've become potential governance issues. What is the wider human cost here? My own experience involves complaints about FOIs going astray, but presumably more consequential complaints are also being lost / delayed / unanswered, such as those involving education provision, or social care? The plan for "a centralised complaints management process" (Paragraph 26) is clearly timely, but how can this function optimally if the same officers as those involved in the current system are likely to be manning the pumps? As Juvenal put it - "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (WHO GUARDS THE GUARDS THEMSELVES?) Hopefully this Committee, along with civic-minded residents, will be keeping a watching brief.
Statement 3 from Mr Alex McKinstry
Finally, I am convinced that this Council's governance has improved vastly. That, however, understates just how dysfunctional governance was around 2022, and I well remember a resident challenging that year's AGS, citing the abolition of the Overview and Scrutiny Board, use of whips and cabinet assistants in scrutiny, political imbalances, etc etc. Those concerns were dismissed as "personal or political ... preferences" by this Committee on 12 January 2023. That same week, the then-leader ventured a budget amendment so unorthodox that it led to external auditor involvement; while the "informal Cabinet" explored a plot to rig the 2023 local elections. A few months later, an internal review found grave deficiencies in the Council's governance arrangements and this was followed by the Best Value Notice. The perturbations and forebodings voiced by that resident in 2023 were entirely justified therefore, and I wanted to put that on the public record.
Statement from Mr Philip Gatrell, on Agenda items 14 & 15.
Unresolved Committee Issues include the following:
The 150 words limit entails established abbreviations
Deficient Fixed Assets Records
Over several years I have notified Senior Officers concerning this incontrovertible breach of the 2015 Regulations.
The related obligatory 1989 Act Section 5 Monitoring Officer report to all Members remains uncirculated. Members are not empowered to waive reporting which does not expire through delay.
Unresponded Local Electors’ Annual Accounting Information Requests
In 2023 I notified Officers concerning this contravention of the 2015 Regulations - it also being contrary to the cited 2021 Moss case decision. The matter however was first permitted Committee issue awareness on 30 May 2024.
Responses to the recent 2023/24 process are outstanding. Again negating electors’ time limited 2014 Act Section 26 rights and assured interactions with the external auditor including Section 27.
This obligates 1989 Act Monitoring Officer reporting to Members and additions to the 2022/23 and 2023/24 draft Annual Governance Statements.