Bridgend Council’s Governance & Audit Committee had one last chance to probe the Arbed insulation scandal in Caerau in detail. You can watch it here and the Q&A session starts about 42 minutes in.
The meeting was originally going to be held on 31st March but was cancelled for whatever reason. Following pressure from opposition members – who threatened to call an EGM – the audit committee’s meeting was rescheduled.
No doubt it’ll be brought up again when repair work starts at some point after the election, but it stands out as perhaps the single biggest controversy this term – even if it goes back further.
The accompanying report (pdf) didn’t have much new information, more a summary of what we already know – covered extensively here and elsewhere.
Police confirm there’s to be no investigation; no direct payments from BCBC to “fake company”
Cllr. Amanda Williams (Ind, Coity), noted correspondence between the then Welsh Government minister, Jane Hutt, and senior officers dating back to 2017 on the Arbed issue. However, most of the reports today have focused on the post-2108 period.
Cllr. Williams also wondered why there were so many delays? While the people involved have moved on, if there was earlier action there would’ve been an earlier resolution and it wouldn’t be discussed almost 10 years later.
The committee was told that as far as officers were aware, the original request from former Chief Executive, Darren Mepham, for an audit in 2018 is what prompted the investigation into procurement and other elements. Although some officers will have left, they were spoken to about the issues.
The audit was more about trying to understand the sequence of events and procurement issues rather than any specific complaints. Following the meeting, South Wales Police officially confirmed they were not going to investigate the scandal further.
Cllr. Tom Beedle (Ind, Maesteg East) couldn’t understand why or how financial officers signed off payments to a seemingly fake company. There had to be a paper trail somewhere.
Officers accepted that payments were made to a company with an invalid VAT number, implying the company never existed. However, BCBC didn’t make any direct payments to any company other than Green Renewable Wales and the “fake company” was a sub-contractor paid in turn by GRW.
The remaining risks need to be clarified
Lay member of the committee, Josephine Williams, said a lot of time and effort has gone into this case and she concluded that this was probably a one-off. That said, there were remaining risks – particularly the council’s possible exposure to compensation claims.
Cllr. Paul Davies (Lab, Caerau) was concerned about the confusion over who was involved in what, making it difficult for affected residents to find out who was accountable.
Cllr. Cheryl Green (Lib Dem, Bryntirion Laleston & Merthyr Mawr) believed this was a deliberate decision not to apply Bridgend Council’s contract rules and if those roles had been applied this would never have happened.
Cllr. Mike Clarke (Ind, Rest Bay) thought the Welsh Government should look at the risks associated with their requirement that money is spent in short time periods as it’s a problem that’s arisen in several other areas and contributed to this scandal.
The compensation issue was semi-dodged as it was more a legal matter, but it was pointed out that only 70 of the 150 properties involved had work undertaken funded by the council in some way.
Officers agreed that rules weren’t followed along with a whole load of other things, whether it was deliberate or not is unclear.
Cllr. Altaf Hussain (Con, Penyfai) accused the council of sitting on the reports until a few weeks ago and doing their best to cover things up. It was right and proper to expect those remaining individuals who are responsible to be held to account; it’s not a closed case.
He was told that delays were largely down to police and Public Services Ombudsman investigations.
BCBC needs to seek opinion on the remaining risks
Other than noting the report, only one other recommendation from committee members was accepted – that Bridgend Council seeks legal opinion on the possible risks the council may still be exposed to (I assume compensation claims).
Other recommendations were rejected as being outside the committee’s remit, including one that cabinet members should step aside if they are subject to an external investigation. Members were told that there’s a formal process for that via the Public Services Ombudsman.
