It is coming up to three years since I first drew attention to the strange business of the Commercial Property Grant Scheme (CPGS) in Pembroke Dock.
Having read my post of 25 April 2013, Cllr Michael Williams, Plaid Cymru leader on the council, raised the matter at the audit committee in June 2013 and where the minutes record:
“The scheme has been subject to numerous audits, which we understand did not identify any significant issues:
• Wales Audit Office (May 2012, 2013 Audit Certificate awaited)
• Welsh European Funding Office (May 2012)
• Welsh Assembly European Funds Audit Team (EFAT) (July 2012)
• European Commission Directorate (October 2012)”
However, the committee agreed that a more comprehensive report was required and at the meeting on 23 September 2013 members were informed that everything was in order and:
“Internal Audit has shared its findings with the Council’s Monitoring Officer who is satisfied that there is no evidence of maladministration or non-compliance with the governance arrangements relevant to the specific schemes or of any lack of competence in officers concerned with the administration of the schemes.”
When I received this report three days before the committee meeting, I sat down to produce evidence that this complacency was misplaced.
I emailed my rebuttal to all members of the audit committee at 10 am on Friday 20 September.
Unfortunately, when the audit committee meeting convened on Monday 23 September, my concerns were set aside because the only member of the committee who had opened his emails (allegedly) in the intervening three days was Cllr Michael Williams.
Suspecting some deliberate foot-dragging, I put down a notice of motion to the October meeting of council calling for the files on these grants to be opened up for members’ inspection.
This went to Cabinet on 2 December 2013 where members were treated to a presentation by the, then, Head of Finance and Assurance, Jon Haswell, which purported to demonstrate that my claims of irregularities were unfounded.
One of Mr Haswell’s rebuttals concerned the roof at Coronation School which he said had been completely renewed contrary to what the photographs on my website seemed to suggest. See here and here.
Cllr David Pugh, the cabinet member with responsibility for regeneration put it all down to my failure to understand how the grant system worked.
Following the cabinet meeting, emboldened by Mr Haswell’s demolition of my claims, Pugh and Leader Jamie Adams visited Pembroke Dock where they climbed up into the attic at Coronation School on a fact-finding mission.
Pugh even found time to complain to the Ombudsman that my “unjustified and unsubstantiated claims” were bringing the county council into disrepute.
Not that it needed any help from me with the likes of Adams and Pugh in charge.
When the matter came before council on 13 December, both were able to say that they had seen for themselves that the “whole” of the roof had been reslated.
Pugh went even further by saying that the truth wasn’t on my agenda and invited members to consider whether my misrepresentations were the result of “deliberate untruth, or sheer incompetence”.
Pugh and Adams had been accompanied on their expedition to Pembroke Dock by the council officer who had supervised these contracts and it didn’t seem to occur to them that he might be spinning them a line to cover up his own incompetence, or worse.
As a result, everything Pugh said that day turned out to be untrue.
And as we shall see later, Mr Haswell had also been relying on the word of this same officer when he made his presentation to cabinet on December 2.
You will not be surprise to learn that this officer has since taken early retirement on health grounds.
In the end, council decided to refuse my request for the files to be open for inspection on the grounds that the audit committee was already on the case.
This seemed like a clever move at the time, but it backfired rather badly, when, after a protracted battle with the monitoring officer, I was able to establish that all members had a right to access the information.
These files proved to be a gold mine and the tipping point came when, in early February 2014, I discovered that the tender process for 10 Meyrick Street had been tilted in favour of the preferred contractor (G&G Builders) by the simple expedient of sending them a different bill of quantities than the other 14 bidders.
When Director of Finance Mark Lewis and Mr Haswell were presented with this evidence by Cllr Jacob Williams and myself they had no option but to call in the police.
My first contact with the police was a detective sergeant stationed in Milford Haven who, in late February, came to my house to interview me informally.
I talked him through the information I had amassed and, considering that I had been working on the case for several months, I was impressed with the speed with which he grasped the essentials.
He was also in contact with the council and it was agreed that a dossier would be assembled detailing the possible irregularities that had been identified.
This was passed to the police on 7 April 2014 and soon after the Milford policeman informed me that the case had been taken out of his hands and transferred to the fraud squad in Carmarthen.
Having some experience of cover-ups engineered by PCC and the local police I decided to make a complaint on my own behalf which I emailed to the police on 21 July 2014.
All went quiet until October 2014 when I received an email from Mr Haswell telling me that the police had now decided to put Pembroke Dock CID in charge of the investigation.
Then as the first anniversary of the handing over the dossier approached I asked the council for an update and was told:
“The investigation is still active and the Police are compiling their files for referral to the C.P.S for consideration. They have also, commissioned a quantity surveyor to inspect the buildings and this action has not yet been undertaken.”
And on 27 July 2015 another email informed me:
“I have been advised today that a date has been set for the quantity surveyor to inspect the relevant premises (as advised in my email of the 26th March) and this is towards the end of August, and it is anticipated that a final report will be made to the Police by the middle of September. It is then the intention of the Police to submit a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service shortly afterwards.”
During my investigations, I had become aware of several quantity surveyors with connections to the various parties that might not be known to the police.
So, in order to satisfy myself that the person appointed was truly independent, I emailed Pembroke Dock police asking if they could give me the name of the firm involved.
I also suggested that, as I knew the ins and outs of the case better than anyone else, it might be profitable if I could meet this Q S.
The police’s reply ignored my request for the identity of the Q S; informed me that PCC was the single point of contact and concluded:
Thank you for your kind offer to assist our Quantity Surveyor, however it was not possible or practical for you to attend.
On 26 November 2015 – 18 months after the dossier was handed over – another email from the council passing on this message from the police:
“Our Police Investigation is ongoing, and it is anticipated further PACE interviews will be completed over the next 7 days. On completion of the outstanding interviews, the matter will be reviewed, and a file of evidence will be passed to the CPS for a charging decision. I will inform you when the file has been submitted to the CPS”.
At the council meeting on 10 December 2015 we received a presentation from the chief constable and I took the opportunity to ask him whether he thought that it was satisfactory that 20 months after the dossier was handed to the police the matter still hadn’t been resolved.
He replied:
I have had correspondence on this matter as well. There is a live investigation into this matter at the moment so it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to go into detail about that at this time and in this forum.
But what I would say is that there is a live inquiry and it is reaching a conclusion from a police investigation perspective and I am keeping the chief executive updated as to progress.
I’m afraid I can’t give any more detail at this moment but I am happy to keep the chief executive updated on progress and that will become more frequent now that we are reaching the stage that we are.
Following the conclusion of that inquiry I think it would be right to look at how long this has taken to see if that is satisfactory – whether there is anything that could have been done differently to make that more rapid.
But it wouldn’t be right to make those observations at the moment with the inquiry still live.
I’ve no idea if this promise to keep the chief executive updated has been kept but the most recent message from the police to reach me via the council’s finance department is dated 15 March and says simply:
“The police investigation into this complex issue is continuing. Police are liaising with WEFO, and will provide summary updates to Pembrokeshire County Council when appropriate.”
What is not explained is why this “complex issue” was taken out of the hands of the fraud squad and passed to Pembroke Dock CID.
I challenge the claim that this issue is complex and have several posts already written which I believe will demonstrate that it is all very simple.
Of course the police might decide that the irregularities detailed in both the council’s dossier and my own complaint are down to carelessness, or incompetence rather than criminal intent, though why it should take them more than two years to reach that conclusion is difficult to understand.
However, I am concerned to do nothing that will will prejudice the police investigation or put me on the wrong side of the Contempt of Court Act (sub judice).
The Contempt of Court Act only applies when proceedings are “active” i.e. when someone has been arrested or charged.
I have sent several emails to the chief constable asking if proceedings are “active” as defined by the Act all of which have been met with a blank refusal to tell me.
Now I hear that a senior police officer is to attend the next meeting of the audit committee to apprise it of the situation.
It is not clear what this senior officer can tell the committee that the chief constable couldn’t tell council on 10 December.
I fancy this is just playing for time while they think what to do next.
However, there has been progress of sorts because I recently challenged Mr Haswell regarding his claim at the cabinet meeting on 2 December 2013 that the whole of the roof at Coronation School had been reslated.
He replied:
“In regard to whether the “whole” of the roof had been reslated on new felt and battens, I would no longer state the word “whole”. I did not work for the Authority when the project was undertaken so I had to rely on available photographs of the work and confirmation from the Quantity Surveyor. I definitely saw photographs which satisfied myself that reslating had been undertaken on the roof and believe I saw photographs of new felt and battens (albeit I can’t remember if this was on a different property). I was advised by the Quantity Surveyor that the “whole” of the roof had been reslated on new felt and battens, hence its inclusion in the report. I have since had to question a number of things I was advised by the Quantity Surveyor, hence the reason I would no longer state the word “whole”.”
You will recall, at the council meeting on 13 December 2013, Cllrs Adams and Pugh both claimed to have been up in the attic at Coronation School and seen for themselves that the whole of the roof had been reslated.
I will be putting down a question to the next meeting of council to establish whether Cllr Adams and the council’s Chief Finance Officer are now on the same page.