Exactly seven months after Eric Pickles ordered Government-appointed inspectors to examine the books at Tower Hamlets council, the Communities Secretary will tomorrow publish their findings.
The report from PricewaterhouseCoopers will be published on the DCLG website at 9.30am, just as a written ministerial statement is made in the Commons.
Three hours later, the minister himself will make an oral statement in the chamber outlining the Government’s response.
Only a handful of people know what’s in the report: ie at PwC and at the very top of DCLG.
At this time of writing (about 8.20pm Monday), even Mayor Lutfur Rahman does not know what’s in it. It may be that the report has been sent to the council’s Head of Paid Service, Stephen Halsey, but even that’s not clear. Presumably, Mr Halsey would have to brief Lutfur if he had received it.
So anyone claiming they’ve heard this or that about the report’s findings is quite likely spreading unfounded rumours.
However, it would be a surprise to almost everyone if Eric did not announce he was imposing a new chief executive on the council…at the very least.
Clearly, whether he goes further depends on what has been found.
Lutfur’s camp believe, from the various questions they’ve had to answer and check during the past seven months, that any direct Government intervention, eg the appointment of Commissioners to run procurement and grants, would be vulnerable to a legal challenge.
So we could see more taxpayers’ money spent on legal bills….on top of the cash currently going on lawyers for the judicial review of Eric’s original decision, a hearing due at the High Court on November 14.
When Eric made his initial announcement on April 4 (four days after the Panorama programme), the council “welcomed” the chance to clear its name.
We welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that council processes have been run appropriately and to date we have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. This inspection affords the borough the best opportunity to demonstrate that the borough has acted in the best interests of all residents. We will release further information in due course.
Well, you could say they had a funny way of showing it. There’s a feeling in Whitehall that the council deliberately dragged its heels over supplying information to the auditors.
As I’ve noted before, the inspection has been trying to determine whether the council has achieved “best value” with the public’s money. Handing it to lawyers to try and block that process didn’t go down too well. It fed a narrative.
Has there been any fraud? I have no idea. Certainly, Panorama never made that allegation….although their team did find evidence of a fraud linked to the Brady Youth Forum, as mentioned here.
If the PwC report hasn’t found fraud, expect the Lutfur line to be “I told you so”.
But I’d be astonished if there isn’t severe criticism of the council tomorrow.
A minister like Eric Pickles just doesn’t make oral statements to the Commons so he can have egg chucked in his face.
So over to you, then, Eric, me old chum.
Trial by Jeory 
Nice posting.
Seems like you may have access to inside information. Any truth in the rumour your sister married Eric’s brother 🙂
CC.
No. But we did actually share the same tailor a couple of years ago..
Panorama may not have made it about fraud – but it wasn’t Panorama who announced the ‘fraud swoop’ that the Standard splashed across its front page before the election. Let’s see whether what’s uncovered bears any resemblance.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lutfur-rahman-police-investigate-tower-hamlets-mayor-over-fraud-allegations-9237712.html
Accurate. NB Brady Youth Forum
Are you suggesting the council is implicated in a fraud involving that organisation?
But in any case the point I was making is, either the inspection was a ‘fraud swoop’ or it was not. If you’re saying that it was then it is perfectly reasonable for the mayor to highlight that no fraud is uncovered if that is the case, and the report merely takes issue with say, record-keeping and governance arrangements.
I’m all for high standards of governance and transparency etc but let’s be honest: does anyone think any local council would emerge from seven months under a £1m fine-tooth comb smelling of roses?
This whole saga reminds me of the Lee Jasper ‘scandal’. Loud claims about fraud involving the authority and money given to charities run by black people and headlines a-plenty before the election. Too bad that the audit report and it’s damning recommendation of ‘administrative improvements’ came after Red Ken had been safely booted out of office on the back of such claims, eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8146096.stm
Oldford1 wrote …
…. and the report merely takes issue with say, record-keeping and governance arrangements.
One of the usual methods of concealing fraud is sloppy record keeping, limited and inadequate record keeping and slap-dash .
Why should any organisation allegedly serving The Public, and annually financed with millions of public money, be allowed to have less than stringent precise financial records ????
What on earth is the organisation’s Chief Financial Officer (one of 3 statutory local government posts) doing to permit financial records that are less than perfectly explanatory and utterly accurate ???
Just whom are the council mandarins serving – themselves or the paying public ?
Curious Cat.
Re: Lee Jasper ….
I do not wish to libel anyone. However Oldford1’s version of events is deeply troubling and therefore merits questioning.
The BBC article he cites states, inter alia,
1. District auditor Michael Haworth-Maden found no evidence of misuse of funds.
2. He found “significant gaps” in Greater London Authority (GLA) records but did not call for further inquiry. The mayor will consider his report this week.
3. Mr Haworth-Maden said he found no evidence of fraud or corruption but called for a number of administrative improvements at the GLA.
I am not alleging Mr Jasper has done anything wrong. I am stating a generic observation which is:-
If the records are missing or incomplete no evidence of a crime may exist. Evidence is facts. If the facts do not exist because of, for example, all the documents have vanished or financial records were never completed either for a week or even for a six month period* then it will be amazingly difficult for any honest and truthful investigator, however skilful they may be, to discover of wrong-doing.
*I personally know of one Labour local authority (and it usually is Labour every time) who reluctantly called-in an external person to conduct an investigation. At the centre of the investigation all documents for a critical 6 month period did not exist.
At the same Labour local authority all the authority’s records were removed from the authority’s premises and given to a third party for a year. Then after a year multi-millions in a deal were unaccountable. Years later the police’s Economic Crime Unit (Fraud Squad) stated “It looks like someone has tided-up the files” so evidence of criminal activity was not present.
Oldford1 get real – please kindly stop deluding yourself. The Scots got it right with ‘NOT PROVEN’.
Curious Cat.
On the serious matter of Fraud, Yes there is fraud of varying amounts and types in literately every English local authority.
Fraud and local councils go together like bread and butter/margarine. Fraud flourishes in some councils because of the council’s internal culture. That culture is usually evidenced by incompetence, disregard for the majority of the public, failing council services and questionable activities.
Fraud exists, and will continue to exist, in local government because of the secrecy of virtually all council activity and the infamous Top Secret meetings with the press and public excluded. In these dreadful meetings uninformed councillors are instructed to vote for something they do not have a clue about. And everything is Top Secret so the public never know unless someone starts leaking. Leaks are infrequent but devastatingly revealing.
Tony Blair made it worse when he introduced USA-style ‘executive’ councillors and mayors. Local government should be about the community and community decisions are best made by not by a single person – the winner of a flawed election process. Before the ‘Tony Blair improvement’ councils had cross-party councillors and co-opted residents and businessmen discussing local matters making recommendations and decisions. Usually the co-opted had no vote but had important influence. Now we have a Banana Republic-style of local government in England with the apes swinging from the trees and stealing our money, our aspirations and out future.
Pickles ‘Best Value’ approach is cunning. It is inevitable questionable activities will be exposed especially after the activities of the boss of the LBTH.
Much local government fraud is deliberately concealed from external auditors and from the police by senior local government staff. The staff’s primary concern is ensuring their cherished CV’s are not linked to any local government scandals. Consequently fraudsters may often be dismissed, encouraged to resign under threats of disciplinary action and even offered a terminal of employment payment to hasten their departure. The frauds are then covered-up and if necessary funds are transferred to fill-in any losses.
Curious Cat
Lets just hope & pray that he & his team get what they deserve and Taxpayers of Tower Hamlets get a better run council and can move forward with others in charge
Amen.
Meanwhile the Election Petition continues. Does Lutfur have to declare financial support received to fund his defence?
See
Click to access Openness_and_transparency_on_personal_interests.pdf
Appendix page 10 says:
” Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from your council or authority) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The relevant period is the 12 months ending on the day when you tell the monitoring officer about your disclosable pecuniary interests following your election or re-election, or when you became aware you had a disclosable pecuniary interest relating to a matter on which you were acting alone.”
Question is doesn’t payment by 3rd party to cover cost of petition defence relate to election / undertaking duties?
Note the penalty for failing to declare.
Mayors declaration of interest last updated 22nd July 2014: Nothing disclosed. What does the Monitoring Officer have to say?
See: http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx?UID=312&HID=639&FID=0&HPID=5216091
What does the Monitoring Officer have to say? – The extremley expensive part time contractor – Nothing
Mrs Paddy,
Please do not be horrible and intolerant.
The poor man has many miles to travel home, polish his collection of local authority funded cars, photograph them, boast about his lavish life style on social media and then relax with a G&T before normal people finish work.
Some of us plebs consider local government has an abundance of . They think we owe them a very well funded living whilst Council Tax payers are working themselves out for the minimum wage to support their families.
Local government does not need parasites of any type. If some are so desperate to let them do so for less than the UK’s prime minister receives. Time to restore clocking-in and out cards – and publish them for all senior local government figures
Curious Cat.
P.S. Mrs Paddy
You wrote The extremley expensive part time contractor.
Why are you complaining ?
Local government is fully accountable to the public. It is transparent and embraces Openness. Everything done by local government is democratically decided by the public. I’m sure you were consulted and you must have voted for LBTH to employ very expensive part-time staff.
Yes folks. You have been conned and there is nothing you can do about this democratic farce.
Curious Cat.
I emailed Takki Sulaiman last Thursday to ask this question. I’ve had no reply.
Here’s my email:
Hi Takki,
What advice has the mayor been given over whether his election petition fighting fund (and its donors) are declarable interests?
Click to access Openness_and_transparency_on_personal_interests.pdf
Is he/will he be required to declare the details of the fund, for example who has donated and possibly how much?
Thanks
Ted
Page 23
“2.23 In light of the above, in our view the current governance arrangements do not appear to be capable of preventing or responding appropriately to failures of the best value duty of the kind we have identified. This calls into question the adequacy of these governance arrangements and the extent to which they are sufficiently robust to enable the Authority to prevent or respond appropriately to other failures of a similar nature.”