Statement of Clarification

When I was elected as Councillor I stated I would be open to scrutiny so I wanted to highlight the summary of the Code of Conduct standards board investigation on my postings on fraud.

Before I state my clarification statement on the allegation it is interesting to note the Government guidance documentation on the current nature of the Standard Boards across all Local Authorities which I believe is worthy of contribution:

This statement of clarification is in response to the Decision Notice MO/159 following a complaint from Cllr Jarrett.

On Thursday 24th November 2011, a meeting of the Audit Committee of Medway Council was convened.

The councillors in attendance at that meeting were

Cllr Clarke, Mackness, Jarrett, Griffiths, Maple.

Agenda Item 7 of that meeting was on the issue of Fraud Resilience. The minute regarding agenda item 7 is laid out below

This report presents the work carried out by PKF, the Council’s external auditor, in respect of the Authority’s fraud resilience. It also sets out an action plan for strengthening this resilience.

Minutes:

Discussion:

The Chief Finance Officer introduced this report on the outcome of PKF’s assessment of the council’s fraud resilience. The report provided details as to the national context and explained that following the publication of ‘The Resilience to Fraud of the UK Public Sector’ by PKF an assessment of the arrangements in place to address the risk of fraud in Medway had been undertaken. The PKF report resulting from this review was attached at Appendix A to the report.

It was reported that the key findings highlighted the lack of a proactive approach to fraud prevention and detection, a lack of joined up approach to corporate fraud, and no measurement of the level of potential losses.

It was noted that these results placed Medway within the fourth quartile of public sector organisations. An Action Plan for strengthening fraud resilience was also attached at Appendix B to the report.

Members were also given details of the paper “Options Paper for the inclusion of Local Authority Benefit Fraud Investigations Teams in the Single Fraud Investigation Services”. A copy of this, together with the Council’s response, was attached at Appendix C.

Members discussed the assessment and considered the ranking, as Medway’s assessment was based on site visits and interviews whereas the ranking of other public sector bodies was based upon a self assessment. The Action Plan was considered by the Committee to provide clear objectives for moving forwards. Members also considered the importance of fraud detection as part of the category management process under the Better for Less transformation programme, audit responsibilities for school academies and the importance of exploring the introduction of a fraud hotline to increase the number of fraud referrals.

The Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting for 5 minutes at the end of this item.

Decisions:

a) The Audit Committee noted the outcome of the PKF report and approved the Action Plan.

b) The Audit Committee agreed that a further report is submitted to the Committee on progress in March 2012.

c) The Audit Committee agreed that officers explore the introduction of a council-wide anti-fraud hotline.

All references on my blog to Fraud relate to the above meeting and minutes and I am happy to make that clarification

However, to state that on my personal blog that it is the most 'fraudulantly run' authority did require clarification as it suggests or implies that individuals within are engaging in such behaviours knowingly. I have since clarified this position after request.

I do note from the report however that 'key findings highlighted which included the proactive approach to fraud prevention and detection, a lack of joined up approach to corporate fraud, and no measurement of the level of potential losses'

Therefore for the avoidance of doubt all statements on this blog, including the specific statement raised in the complaint, were highlighting the Conservative led council's position being in the bottom 25% of councils for managing fraud detection, fraud prevention and having no measurement for potential loss.

On this particular case: I do not believe however that it was reasonable for significant amounts of tax-payers money to be spent on an issue which was subsequently clarified upon challenge.

The cost to the tax-payer of this investigation I therefore believe to be wholly inappropriate, and I will continue to represent the tax-paying public against poor financial management, as noted from the Fraud report and copious other reports on poor financial management that we have read in the press and beyond.

Whether you support the opposition or not; it is important for robust scrutiny to take place. Though unwelcome to many in positions of authority it is responsible in a democracy to ensure that this occurs.

In Medway, the opposition does take its responsibility seriously, striking a balance between working in the Council chamber, and also trying to engage the public in a way which endorses and encourages political debate. I believe the Medway Political blogosphere, which has a plurality of opinion, should be celebrated and supported for holding authority to account, in engaging the public and highlighting how local government is important for all. It of course has to do so responsibility, which I believe it has done so well in recent years.

On a personal I welcome the public attention and scrutiny on this matter as it has raised this issue of a lack of fraud mitigation up the agenda and I believe highlights how the opposition, under its new media strategy, is and will continue to robustly hold our elected Conservative representatives to account in Medway.