Agenda item

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 8.30 am on 31^st July 2025.

 

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. 

Ms Chedgy representation was read out to the Committee.

 

The swap report (item 6 on the agenda) states at page 7 that its counter fraud team has recently completed an investigation arising from a whistleblowing referral. What was the referral about and what was the outcome?

 

 

Cllr Suttle read out the response to her question:

 

The Council was contacted by a whistleblower in August 2024 making allegations against a member of staff, citing alleged potential conflicts of interest and circumventing of procedures alongside accusations of bullying.

 

The resultant SWAP investigation identified systemic failures with how this work was carried out including:

our financial and procurement rules not being followed,

a lack of oversight of interim staff and budget approvals

poor record-keeping and a lack of transparency in contract awards, instances of potential conflicts of interest and breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct for employees.

A summary of the SWAP investigation findings has been made available to the public.

 

This audit investigation, and a separate audit into our contract and expenditure processes that was prompted during the investigation, have identified weaknesses in our governance, financial controls, procurement practices and oversight. We take this seriously and we have already begun to implement an action plan that will: strengthen our financial oversight and budget monitoring, improve procurement and contract management processes, review recruitment and management for interim and agency employees, provide enhanced training and guidance for employees, especially for those who manage budgets and procurement, ensure regular monitoring and reporting from officers to the Audit and Governance Committee

 

Mr Mills presented his question to the Committee:

 

I will preface this by saying I have no real knowledge of the inner workings of the Council and have never felt compelled to speak up in the past, so apologies if I am missing the point here somewhat and am misguided in some of my statements below as I’m probably unaware of the full picture.

 

The health and safety compliance report published on the council website is damning on so many levels, highlighting a complete lack of financial discipline, procedural oversight and mismanagement of what we are told are limited resources at a local government level with acute funding pressures.

 

What I really fail to grasp is how payments can be made without correct approval, staff can be recruited and pay rises implemented without a paper trail and reserves can be accessed without having to justify every penny spent. It is particularly troublesome where over £1m has been spent annually on internal and external audits combined, yet it was a whistleblower who uncovered the irregularities, despite the figures that are being quoted being well over a material misstatement of sorts.

 

I’m sure that when the dust settles and investigations are concluded we will be made aware that a criminal investigation has been raised against the terminated employees where appropriate and the suppliers who are guilty of overcharging and providing gifts and hospitality are blacklisted. There has to be significant and decisive consequences for those involved to help restore trust in the Council.

 

But onwards to the report of internal audit activity. Some of the report is currently obscured due to a formatting issue, but I can’t help but feel a little dismayed at reading that a relatively simple financial control – that there is to be “a formal process for requesting work and signing off invoices” within the Place Directorate has been pushed back over a year for action? What the residents of Dorset need to see is definitive action, and I am questioning what the justification is to allow this to be pushed back?

 

Looking at table 2 of the internal audit plan progress, it is also apparent that not a single department reached the “green” standard of sound system of governance, controls and risk management, with over 40% of departments having a limited opinion showing significant gaps and weaknesses. An internal audit department’s role is to report and provide recommendations and there is only so much that can be achieved without a decisive shift in management culture on financial governance, so what is being done at departmental manager level to help facilitate this change?

 

Cllr Suttle read out the response to Mr Mills question:

 

Thank you for your question, this is a topic which this committee takes very seriously, and we recognise that many members of the public will be feeling the same as you.

 This committee has received a copy of the investigation at a private meeting held on 7 July 2025 and our absolute focus is to seek assurances that changes are made to prevent a similar situation happening in future.

This situation is very much ongoing and rebuilding public trust will be core to how the Council moves forward from this.

 

Your comments and questions helpfully set some of the context for committee members ahead of considering item 6.

 

The first question is around delays to the audit action. The deadline has been revised twice.  Officers have confirmed that:

1. They are working to the new deadline, 30 September 2025, and remain on track.

2. The action is to establish a FORMAL process for work relating to HOUSING

 

Typically, this is the work carried out at properties which the council providing for housing.  Work is requested by the housing team, and then delivery is overseen by the assets and property team and can range from general maintenance work through to more significant works between tenancies.

There are processes in place, the work is to strengthen these and formalise the process, such as the sign off process once work has been completed to ensure the highest quality of work is provided for our tenants.

 

Turning to your second question, this committee will be receiving a report from Sally White, Assistant Director at SWAP at item 6 who will be able to set some context for the report.  There will be an opportunity to further explore table 2 on page 9 of the SWAP report in more detail.

 

Until then, a brief response is as follows…

 

The audit coverage ratings are based on the total number of audits undertaken in each strategic risk area, and then an average of the opinions is established.

 

The audit plan is agreed on a rolling basis through a continuous risk assessment in collaboration with officers together with a wider understanding of the risks facing Councils more generally to inform the approach at Dorset.

 

The tables in this report act as a useful guide for this committee in assessing adequacy of coverage on what this committee sees as the most significant risks.

 

This item will be discussed in full shortly on the agenda, so no doubt this aspect can be explored more fully.

 

I thank you for taking the time to raise these questions, which will no doubt help shape the discussions at this evenings committee - and beyond.