Agenda item

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 20 February 2026 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].

The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Wednesday 25 February 2026 [midday the working day before the meeting].

The deadline for the submission of a petition is Thursday 12 February 2026 [10 working days before the meeting].

 

The following public questions and statements were received:

 

Agenda Item 6 – External Audit Finding Report and Statement of Accounts 2024/25 

 

Question 1 from Mr Philip Gatrell:

 

CREDITORS

 

My 24 July 2025 Question to this Committee and 10 February 2026 Statement to Full Council refer, concerning Council’s failed judicial review when the decision upheld an Ombudsman’s Report regarding injustice caused to a complainant.

 

I was informed that because the Ombudsman’s legal costs were under negotiation they were not adjusted as a creditor in the 2024/25 draft Accounts. This does not conform with the accounting tenet of “prudence” where audit concepts of monetary “materiality” are not the criteria.

 

Subsequently £80,000 in Ombudsman’s costs was confirmed and that amount is included in a notified £214,722 borne by the Council as recorded in my February 10 Statement; excluding £2,489 estimated childcare charges and £200 for “time and trouble” reimbursable to the claimant.

 

What is –

-         The final total cost to the Council regarding this matter and

-         how much of the amount owing at 31 March 2025 has not been adjusted as a Creditor in the revised 2024/25 Accounts?

 

Response:

 

The final cost to the council was £81,759.10, with this all charged to the 2025/26 financial year.

 

Question 2 from Mr Philip Gatrell:

 

The ‘Oracle Fusion’ accounting system is not fully functional. Shortfalls - including human operational - unquestionably exist evidenced by information received by me as indicated in previous public issues.

 

A fixed assets module was previously added to integrate double entry control in place of vulnerable spreadsheets.

 

The external auditor’s documented experience with another client discloses major problems with Fusion modules. Including for example certain fixed assets movements and their dis-synchronicity in accounting years likewise reflected at this Council.

 

QUESTIONS:

 

·       Which accounting modules have not been fully implemented ?

·       Which specific fixed assets types remain reliant on spreadsheet records ?

·       Has a reconciled Revenue and Benefits accounting migration to the single ‘Capita Cloud’ database been completed ?

·       For which future periods have cashflow forecasts been prepared and are they reconciled with all revenue and capital projections for income and expenditure commencing with the latest annual accounting base ?

·       Which financial information is generated by ‘Dynamics 365’ ?

 

Response:

 

For clarification the Council went live with Microsoft Dynamic 365 as its Finance and HR system supplier in April 2023, having previously utilised Oracle Fusion.

 

1.    There are currently 33 modules available across the Finance and HR system. The majority of these modules have not been implemented as they are not applicable for a public sector organisation. As an example, stock management.

2.    All fixed assets remain on spreadsheet records.

3.    Yes, an accounting reconciliation was carried out for the new revenue and benefits system.

4.    Cash flow forecasts are produced on a rolling 12-month basis, which are updated and reconciled daily for the latest actuals position.

5.    Dynamics 365 is used for the general ledger, accounts payable and accounts receivable but in a limited form.

 

Agenda Item 10 – Financial Regulations: Annual Evolution for the year 2026/27

 

Question from Mr Ian Redman:

 

Financial Regulations exist to safeguard public funds. When they are breached, what formal accountability mechanisms are triggered? Further, can the Council confirm whether any senior officers have been subject to those mechanisms in the past three years?

 

For example:

 

·       The Regulations require any proposed Concession Contract, regardless of value, to be agreed with and managed by PCM. In 2025, a concession at Hengistbury Head Visitor Centre was arranged solely by the Parks Team without contacting PCM.

·       In the Smart Growth Associates case, a purchase order for £18,500 was approved by a senior officer without a Procurement Decision Record. There appears to be no record explaining why Smart Growth Associates were selected.

 

In these cases, does the Council consider that the Financial Regulations were breached? If not, please explain the basis for that conclusion.

If they constitute breaches, what reporting mechanisms apply, and who was responsible for reporting them?

 

Response:

 

Paragraph 4 of Part G, page 5-34 of financial regulations states the specific regulation relevant to breaches.  This includes the following key points:

·       A breach of the regulations may lead to disciplinary action

·       Service Directors and managers are responsible for reporting any breaches known or discovered as they become aware of such instances

·       The Chief Finance Officer is responsible for providing an annual report to the A&G committee on all identified breaches, which must include the circumstances of the breach and the remedial action taken (or planned) by way of remedy.

 

With regard to the first example provided in the question, you made a specific complaint which has been responded to by the relevant service area, this included a stage 2 Service Director review. You set out a series of detailed and specific questions, responses were provided detailing why in the opinion of the Service, requirements within the Financial Regulations were followed. The service recognise you disagree with what has been provided and note your intention to pass your complaint to the local government ombudsman.

 

With regard to the second example provided in the question, this procurement occurred in 2021, the Council has been unable to subsequently locate a Procurement Decision Record (PDR) which was a requirement of Financial Regulations at the time.  A breach may have therefore occurred.  Having been identified in the 2025/26 financial year, during the FuturePlaces investigation, this will be reported in the 2025/26 Annual Breach Report to A&G committee which is scheduled to be received in July 2026.  The Head of Procurement has subsequently revised the PDR storage and filing arrangements, to what existed at the time of this example.

 

Agenda Item 7 – Artificial Intelligence – Governance and Risk Management

 

Statement 1 from Ian Redman:

 

AI Use in Reviewing Procurement Decision Records

 

A review of PDR476 (Define/Procure) and PDR758 (Award) illustrates how AI could strengthen decision making.

In PDR476, three services (Christmas Lights, Market and Ice Rink) were bundled without a documented options appraisal comparing aggregated and separate contracts. The “Savings/Income Opportunities” section is blank, no justification is provided for not dividing the contract into lots, and financial modelling to evidence the claimed £100k MTFP saving is absent.

In PDR758, evaluation was conducted on a quality-only basis, with no financial scoring, despite the concession model relying on income generation. The business case for aggregation is not restated or evidenced at award stage.

AI review tools could systematically flag missing options analysis, unsupported financial assumptions, absence of lot-division justification, and misalignment between evaluation methodology and commercial model, thereby improving transparency, strengthening assurance, and enhancing the robustness and defensibility of procurement decisions.

 

Statement 2 from Ian Redman:

 

This list is AI-generated from the transcript of this Committee’s March 2022 meeting on FuturePlaces:

 

·       Weak governance clarity – Uncertainty over shareholder control, reserved matters and democratic oversight.

·       Insufficient financial risk modelling – Concerns about borrowing exposure, public liability and lack of stress-testing.

·       Limited scrutiny mechanisms – Questions about how councillors would monitor performance and ensure transparency.

·       Capacity and expertise gaps – Doubts about whether the Council had the commercial skills and controls to oversee a vehicle of this scale.

·       Evolving governance structures – Key frameworks were still developing during rollout.

·       Ambiguity in the stewardship model – Unclear translation of concept into accountable delivery.

 

Concerns about governance, financial exposure and oversight were clearly raised. Where warnings are not fully addressed and acted upon, the consequence can be substantial financial loss and reputational damage, including outcomes involving the loss of millions. AI analysis can highlight recurring risks, but effective governance depends on decision-makers responding to those warnings.

 

Agenda Item 6 – External Audit Finding Report and Statement of Accounts 2024/25 

 

Statement 1 from Philip Gatrell:

 

SIGNIFICANT ERRORS AND OMISSIONS

IN THE 2024/25 EXTERNAL AUDIT FINDINGS

AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS

 

Initial observations:

 

·       Regarding my public issues for this Committee on 15th January 2026, and contrary to the external auditor’s introduction commencing approximately 18 minutes into that meeting, the updated Findings Report today omits recording Council’s materially misstated net bank overdraft in now amended draft Accounts note 16.

·       Despite my earlier communications regarding 2019/20 onwards, Members’ Allowances in 2024/25 finalised Accounts note 24 incorrectly include Employer’s National Insurance resulting in a £105,313 (7%) overstatement. Similarly for 2023/24. This is an error type originally acknowledged after a previous year’s internal “forensic examination” triggered by my notification of significant misstatements in certain individual Members’ Allowance payments. The error has been overlooked by the external auditor although within the “Sensitivity to public interest and reader of the accounts” qualitativemateriality reporting requirement.

·       Statements to follow identify further material Accounts and audit concerns.

 

Statement 2 from Philip Gatrell:

 

OMISSIONS FROM THE 2024/25 ACCOUNTS

AND EXTERNAL AUDITOR’S REPORTING

 

THE RUSSELL - COTES CHARITY

 

The Charity’s 2024/25 audited Accounts are overdue for filing with the Charity Commission. This arises from the Management Committee’s documented proper dissatisfaction with the draft Accounts regarding the Charity auditor’s “outstanding queries being resolved”.

 

The core issue is the Charity’s transition to “Independence” under a Scheme where the timing of   enabling funding has been delayed by the Council.

 

Neither the Council’s notes on Accounts page 113 nor  auditor’s reporting make reference to this material concern which also reflects Council’s openly acknowledged stretched financial resources.

 

SYSTEM AND CONTROL WEAKNESSES

 

The Independent Auditors’ Report contains a disclaimer of opinion due to uncertainty regarding opening balances. That does not obviate system / control evaluations, in - year transactional and substantive balance sheet testing.

 

Consequently, the absence of audit report references to demonstrable weaknesses identified in my previous public issues is profoundly concerning.

 

Statement 3 from Philip Gatrell:

 

FURTHER 2024/25 MATTERS INCLUDE:

 

“2014 ACT”

 

Contraventions of this incontestable legislation are  documented in my earlier issues, likewise Council’s untimely 2024/25 response to me.

 

Concerning the external audit report page 132 reference to no action regarding my Section 27 Objection:

 

·       Firstly, my unresponded Questions all raised in time are not voided or irrelevant.

·       The page 132 fait accompli late response is contrary to the National Audit Office Code. Nor can it be assumed I would not have exercised Section 28(3) rights in appropriate time prior to audit conclusion.

·       I also refer to the fiduciary nature not monetary amount of “Deputyship” funds held per my 15 January 2026 issue #2.

 

ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT

 

This Committee not the auditor is the decision maker regarding    qualifying contents. Unreported “significant issues” include:

 

·       Notified system and control weaknesses

·       Continuing Freedom of Information response failures

·       Ombudsman’s Report and failed Transparency considerations in my 10th February 2026 Full Council issue