Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Beryl Ezzard and Cllr Ryan Hope.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on the 29^th June 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29^th June 2026 were confirmed and signed.

To consider the Audit & Governance Action Tracker.

Concern was raised regarding item number 6 on the action tracker and its lack of a completion date. It was confirmed that there was a date which was to be added to the tracker.

The action tracker was noted.

To disclose any pecuniary, other registrable or non-registrable interest as set out in the adopted Code of Conduct.  In making their decision councillors are asked to state the agenda item, the nature of the interest and any action they propose to take as part of their declaration.

If required, further advice should be sought from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

Representatives of town or parish councils and members of the public who live, work, or represent an organisation within the Dorset Council area are welcome to submit either 1 question or 1 statement for each meeting.  You are welcome to attend the meeting in person or via MS Teams to read out your question and to receive the response. If you submit a statement for the committee this will be circulated to all members of the committee in advance of the meeting as a supplement to the agenda and appended to the minutes for the formal record but will not be read out at the meeting. The first 8 questions and the first 8 statements received from members of the public or organisations for each meeting will be accepted on a first come first served basis in accordance with the deadline set out below.

All submissions must be emailed in full to [email protected] by 8.30am on Wednesday the 29^th of July 2026.

When submitting your question or statement please note that:

· You can submit 1 question or 1 statement.

· A question may include a short pre-amble to set the context.

· It must be a single question and any sub-divided questions will not be permitted.

· Each question will consist of no more than 450 words, and you will be given up to 3 minutes to present your question.

· When submitting a question please indicate who the question is for (e.g., the name of the committee or Portfolio Holder)

· Include your name, address, and contact details.  Only your name will be published but we may need your other details to contact you about your question or statement in advance of the meeting.

· Questions and statements received in line with the council’s rules for public participation will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

· All questions, statements and responses will be published in full within the minutes of the meeting. 

There were no questions from members of the public.

To receive questions submitted by councillors.

Councillors can submit up to two valid questions at each meeting and sub divided questions count towards this total. Questions and statements received will be published as a supplement to the agenda and all questions, statements and responses will be published in full within the minutes of the meeting.

The submissions must be emailed in full to [email protected] by 8.30am on Wednesday the 29^th of July 2026.

Dorset Council Constitution – Procedure Rule 13

There were no questions from councillors.

To note the minutes of the Audit & Governance Hearing Sub-committee (if any meetings have been held).

There were no meetings held.

To receive a report from Julie Masci, Grant Thornton - Director of Public Sector Audit.

Julie Masci outlined the reports. The Annual IT controls report had previously come each financial year as a part of the financial statements audit. There had been some positive progress made which had led to previously reported deficiencies being removed from the report. There were some recommendations that had been brought forward in the report however they were rated as non-significant.

Concern was raised around the four people being identified as having inappropriate access to systems which was not best practice. It was asked whether the IT team needed more capacity as the problem felt like a staffing issue rather than a direct IT issue. It was confirmed that those four people had access as a part of the SAP support team who had the ability to perform those functions and that there was still risk but did not have any direct involvement with any financial processes relating to the accounts.

A general query was raised regarding end user computing controls such as spreadsheets and databases and whether it would be covered in the main audit. It was confirmed that this process was apart of the main audit and explained that IP testing would be done to make sure that nothing had been changed between the creation of these spreadsheets and databases and them coming to audit.

It was explained that the audit looks at those systems that generate the most financial information as they were key risk areas.

A discussion was had regarding inadequate control over accounts in SAP. 

The second report was introduced and explained as a regular update report which included a general update on where progress with the audit was and an update on the sector.

The final report was on the assurance strategy. It was explained that there was not sufficient assurance on opening balances due to the missed audit year by the council’s previous auditors in 2022/23, but the report stated that there was confidence that assurance could be regained.

The recommendations were noted.

To receive a report from Jonathan Mair, Director of Assurance and Governance.

The Director of Assurance & Governance outlined the report. The report concerned the arrangements for the scheme of allowances made available to councillors. Councillors did not set their allowances in isolation but with the review from a panel and the chair of that panel had retired from the role. The panel therefore needed a new chair and was to have the number of people on the panel increased.

Recommendations proposed by Cllr Jill Haynes seconded by Cllr Ryan Holloway.

Decision:

-       That support was sought from South-West Councils to fulfil the role of chair of the panel;

-       That an open recruitment exercise was carried out to appoint one further panel member to the Independent Remuneration Panel.

To receive a report from Adam Williams, Assistant Director – SWAP.

The SWAP Audit Manager introduced the report. This included a follow-up audit of the investigation and building compliance action plan which proved the closure of most outstanding actions from the previous report and only two actions had remained as in progress. The second audit was the Better Care Fund which was a joint review between Dorset Council, Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council, and NHS Dorset Independent Care Board. The findings related to an expired section 75 agreement, collaborative working arrangements, and the recording of Better Care Fund issues.

Confirmation was sought regarding the three outstanding actions and which priorities related to each one and when the target dates for completion were. These were the same three actions from the previous report, but further action had been completed since then.

The recommendations were noted.

To receive a report from Adam Williams, Assistant Director – Swap.

The Assistant Director of SWAP introduced the report. It was explained that annually SWAP is required to form a conclusion on the effectiveness of governance and control within the council which was summarised in this report. After a review of the work done in 2025/26 a reasonable opinion was offered. Overall, the assurance work completed in 2025/26 had led to a more favourable opinion. To support the assessment for 2026/27 the audit plan was to be looked at to ensure the right coverage to assess how effective and imbedded certain actions that took time would be.

The recommendations were noted.

To receive a report from Marc Eyre, Service Manager for Assurance.

The Service Manager for Assurance introduced the report. The report outlined the framework and highlighted the progress made after adopting the revised counter fraud and financial crime policy and the protected disclosure policy approved in 2025. There was a new fraud action plan which set out the council’s current level of compliance mapped against a maturity model baseline report that SWAP had developed and identified areas of improvement. SWAP were to commence two audits shortly to support the work. The report included a summary of whistleblowing cases which had been kept at a top-level. The Protected Disclosure Whistleblowing Policy was updated in May 2026 to reflect changes to employment legislation surrounding sexual harassment.

The recommendations were noted.

To receive a report from Marc Eyre, Service Manager for Assurance.

The Service Manager for Assurance introduced the report. It presented the draft annual governance statement and local code of corporate conduct. The final version was to be signed by the Chief Executive and leader of the council. It reflected the May 2025 addendum for the first time which meant it now included the individual governance controls to show a more transparent system of progress. The report was currently in draft form to allow the committee to comment on the document.

A question was asked what the extent members were involved in the self-assessment process. The self-assessment was an assessment both from the various officers that own the identified subjects in the local code but there were also lead officers who could review and confirm whether they were comfortable with it. From a member perspective it was their opportunity to give any comments for review.

A conversation was had regarding section five of the report. It was confirmed that all the items marked as red were issues. It was commented that as there was a lack of progress being made on trying to get officers to complete mandatory training it and it was encouraged to continue to push for this training to be completed. It was asked why it was acceptable for employees to be in job roles where a DBS check was required but not completed. It was answered that as there was zero tolerance for lack of DBS checks which meant that the item would be marked as red very quickly. There were also mitigations in place during the processing times for DBS checks to be completed such as supervising staff and no safeguarding issues had arisen as a result.

A comment was made on the relevancy of the cyber-security training and was suggested that it needed some revision.

The recommendations were noted.

To consider the work programme for the Committee.

The work programme was noted.

To consider any items of business which the Chairman has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be recorded in the minutes.

There were no urgent items.

To move the exclusion of the press and the public for the following item in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

The public and the press will be asked to leave the meeting whilst the item of business is considered.

Proposed by Cllr Murcer and seconded by Cllr Holloway.

Decision:

That the press and the public be excluded for the following item(s) in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 7 of schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

To receive a report from Lisa Cotton, Interim Executive Director of Modernisation and Customer Delivery

The recommendations were noted.