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 9 January 2026 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Wednesday 14 January 2026 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Wednesday 31 December 2025 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The following public issues were received:
Public Question from Mr Ian Redman on Agenda Item 7, External Auditor – Audit Progress and Sector update, and Agenda Item 15, Internal Audit Quarterly Audit Plan Update
To assist residents’ understanding of the Audit & Governance Committee’s assurance framework, I would welcome clarification from the Chair on the respective roles of internal and external audit.
Based on the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards, CIPFA guidance, and the NAO Code of Audit Practice, material previously shared with you, could you clarify whether internal and external audit functions are expected to operate proactively as early-warning mechanisms, or primarily reactively, reporting issues once they have fully crystallised?
In particular, when governance weaknesses, unclear commissioning, or control gaps begin to emerge within a high-risk projects, what is the expectation on each audit function to ensure concerns are escalated promptly to senior management and to this committee, rather than relying on assurances or retrospective reporting?
Response:
Internal Audit in BCP Council work to a risk-based audit plan carefully designed to prioritise scarce resource and to obtain evidence through testing, (in its various forms), to form judgement and make recommendations to mitigate risk and assess the adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of systems and controls.
This results in both proactive and reactive audit coverage.
For example, testing may identify a weakness or deficiency that may allow something negative to occur, but further testing shows that the negative event has not actually taken place, in this case the audit work is proactive, and implementation of audit recommendations should prevent it ever happening.
Similarly, testing may identify a weakness or deficiency and consequently something negative may have actually occurred, in this case the audit work is reactive, and implementation of audit recommendations should result in no reoccurrence.
On a very common, every-day basis, Internal Audit in BCP Council will offer advice and support to colleagues within the Council, for example, on general matters of control, governance and interpretation of financial policies. On some rarer occasions Internal Audit in BCP Council will provide formal consultancy advice on a project or a programme and such consultancy work is reported to the A&G Committee as and when it takes place, an example may be the implementation of a major new financial system.
Both Internal and External Audit work to professional standards which require timely reporting. In practice this means that if a matter is identified and determined to be sufficiently significant audit functions would report the matter to senior management and to Audit & Governance committee usually within the existing reporting framework – such as a Quarterly Update Report in the case of Internal Audit or Auditor’s Annual Report or Audit Findings Report in the case of External Audit. In exceptional circumstances an ad-hoc report may be produced at any time.
Three Public Statements from Mr Philip Gatrell on Agenda item 6 – External Audit finding report and Statement of Accounts 2024/25
Statement 1:
MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT OF COUNCIL’S NET BANK BALANCES AT 31 MARCH 2025:
BACKGROUND
My preceding Statements to this Committee 27 November 2025 #1 and 16 October 2025 #3 refer.
The draft positive “bank current account” balance of £4,794,000 was in reality a £21,429,220 overdraft comprising three designated accounts:
Payments - Overdrawn £( 9,871,692)
Unprocessed Income - Overdrawn £(12,806,424)
Processed Income - Positive £ 1,248,896
Net Overdrawn £(21,429,220)
CAUSE
The misstatement arises from a failure to apply fundamental double entry synchronicity at the 31 March 2025 accounting cut-off; as notified in my preceding related Statements regarding incongruous reciprocal NEGATIVE “cash held” balances.
REMEDIATION
This has been corrected on Accounts finalisation as confirmed by the external auditor although omitted from their “Audit Findings”.
Doubtless the Committee will discuss in depth with Finance Officers as to why this concerning error escaped recognition when publishing the draft Accounts.
Members should also consider how the overdraft compares in future financial sustainability terms with the 2024/25 £100,000 facility.
Statement 2:
BANK FUNDS 31 MARCH 2025: UNRESOLVED CONCERNS
COUNCIL’S PROCESSED INCOME
There is an overall £352,053-96 balance reconciliation discrepancy. Spreadsheet scanning identifies irregular cell entries altering column T’s correct total per the column B row 38 cell formulae for £1,246,048-80 “AWAITING BANKING” items £1,422,075-78 and “AWAITING SERVICE REPORT” items £176,026-98.
Those items define not uncleared bank lodgements but DEBTORS at 31 March 2025. By nature additionally indicating potential IRRECOVERABLE amounts.
3 “DEPUTYSHIP” ACCOUNTS £52,618-91
The external auditor has not respo nded under “Section 26” but I deduce no breach of trust is deemed because available funds are assumed throughout. Contradicted however by Council’s year end net NEGATIVE “liquid” resources.
No interest was applied equitably notwithstanding Trustee Act 2000.
26 AUTONOMOUS SCHOOL BANK BALANCES £1,446,930-00 TREATED AS PART OF “CASH” HELD
Council’s mandate enables interest sharing. Likelihood of interest received and methodology are unclear.
I have not received corresponding reconciliations. I gather the external auditor verifies these.
Statement 3:
EXTERNAL AUDITOR’S ACTION PLAN PAGES
85:
My 27 November 2025 Statement #2 references “Section 26” questions - which included fixed assets - where the auditor has not responded.
My 16 October 2025 Statement #3 notes vulnerable MOBILE IT EQUIPMENT as a material concern. As corroborated by information regarding not fully integrated general ledger accounting and consequential PHYSICAL ASSETS DIRECTIONAL TESTING limitations.
On 6 November 2025, total cost £5,918,917, there were a recorded 7,021 laptops and tablets and 2,840 phones.
86:
Section 26 electoral “CUSTODIANS OF THE CUSTODIAN” rights are relegated to “Medium” risk. My three 16 October 2025 Statements disagree with deference to law and case precedent. This writer’s preceding Statements today demonstrate the safeguarding actuality.
Management’s response emphasises Officers’ time. Conversely a 2025 FOI FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL DECISION illustrates there were respectively only 3 and 2 Section 26 requesters in two recent years; the responses were overdue - in one instance no response.
My 24 July 2025 Statement #1 refers.
Public Statement from Mr Ian Redman on Agenda item 10 – Two Riversmeet Studios
The Two Riversmeet Studios proposal reflects weaknesses seen in previous council projects such as Future Places and the Durley Chine Environmental Hub, which in hindsight clearly lacked sufficient assessment of risk and evaluation of alternative options.
The appraisal appears limited, with physical expansion treated as the default solution. The report does not provide a rigorous assessment of alternatives, such as using a temporary structure, re-programming existing space, partnership use of nearby facilities, modular or phased expansion, or the use of vacant shop units in the town centre that could support studio activity while contributing to regeneration. These options could help test whether demand genuinely exists without committing to upfront investment.
The report also lacks clear best- and worst-case financial scenarios, including consideration of market competition. I ask the Committee to pause this proposal and require a more robust appraisal, as there is no urgency for this decision.
Public Statement from Mr Alex McKinstry on Agenda item 6 – External Audit finding report and Statement of Accounts 2024/25
Re external audit findings, page 86: it may be true that all requests to inspect the 2024-5 accounting records were replied to before the statutory deadline. I should point out however that my own request was answered two days before that deadline, leaving very little time to query or object to the accounts - rights conferred by Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act. This is still a vast improvement however on previous years. Regarding the managerial comment, also page 86, that these requests are time-consuming, I can only say there is no ceiling on the accounting records an elector might inspect, as established in the Moss case (2021); and that the ability of local taxpayers to hold their authority to account is a precious democratic right dating back to 1844. Finally, copious thanks to the external auditor for putting this matter under review.