“WHAT a difference a year makes”, Cllr Mike Stoddart told the Herald after reading a report on the Commercial Property Grant Scheme (CPGS) in Pembroke Dock that is due to go before PCC’s audit committee next Monday. 

The Hakin councillor has been making allegations about this grant scheme for almost 18 months and in September 2013, after the matter was referred to the audit committee by Cllr Michael Williams (Plaid Cymru), and an investigation carried out by the council’s internal audit service, members were told: “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.”

Now, a year later, the council is singing a different tune and the report before next week’s meeting says that a further internal audit investigation into 29 Dimond Street (Paul Sartori) has found there is “No evidence of regular site visits being undertaken to ensure details agree with the specification and standards” and that “There was insufficient evidence of physical or financial completion of the project to support the authorisation of the grant payment.” Cllr Stoddart told our reporter: “If you cut through the jargon, what this means is that grant money was paid out without anyone carrying out proper checks that the work had actually been done” “So much for last year’s attempt to gloss over the problem with talk of ‘no evidence of maladministration’ or ‘any lack of competence’ by council officers.” “The only conclusion is that the report that went before the audit committee last September was either not properly researched or, more likely, one of the council’s trademark cover-ups.”

The latest report also concludes that: “Management and/or disciplinary action should be considered in respect of non-compliance with the process and procedures contained in the CPGS procedural manual, and the additional issues identified in this review.” But Cllr Stoddart says it’s a bit late for that. “A report was sent to the police in April this year containing allegations of massive overpayments at Paul Sartori for work that was either ineligible for grant aid, or, in many cases, simply not done at all.” “That was when disciplinary action should have been considered “, he told the Herald, “it’s probably too late now because, I understand, the officer who signed off these ‘irregular payments’ went on long-term sick leave just a couple of weeks ago”. Cllr Stoddart says that one of his main concerns was that the tender process was wide open to fraud.

He wrote to the council last September pointing out that not only was the tender opening process entirely in the hands of the developer’s architect, but, as eligible and ineligible works were intermingled in the Bills of Quantities accompanying the tender, it was possible for the rates for the eligible work to be inflated to attract a higher grant, while those for the ineligible work could be reduced to keep the tender competitive. As Cllr Stoddart said: “This is especially so if there is a collusive agreement between the applicant and the builder that the ineligible works will not be required to be done. That being the case the builder can submit whatever rates he likes for the private work without ever having to deliver.

The council’s internal auditors dismissed his concerns by claiming that as the developer didn’t know which items were eligible and which were not and “Consequently they have no ability to carry out the fraud suggested, whether they collude or not.” Mike Stoddart says it is simply not true that applicants don’t know which parts of the work are eligible for grants and which not and this latest audit report recommends that: “Grant funding should be based on the lowest tender for eligible works to ensure that the process cannot be manipulated and that best value for public funds is obtained.” The report also suggests that, in order to ensure the integrity of the process, in future, a council officer should be present when tenders are opened. Cllr Stoddart told the Herald: “This report bears out everything I have said about the flaws in this process.”

“People should wonder what sort of regime we are living under when a member is subject to a barrage of personal attacks by leading members of the ruling IPPG for simply telling the truth.” This is a reference to last December’s meeting of full council, when Cllr David Pugh, cabinet member with responsibility for grants, accused Cllr Stoddart of conducting “a campaign of innuendo and smear tactics” and making “spurious allegations” about the way the council had administered the CPGS; concluding his ten minute tirade: “But, then, getting at the truth is not on his agenda.”

At the same meeting, Pugh’s IPPG colleague Cllr John Allen-Mirehouse accused the Hakin councillor of being “someone who wouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”. But Mike Stoddart is defiant in the face of these attacks. “Sadly for them, they have backed the wrong horse”, he told the Herald, “the truth is all on my side”. As for the attempted character assassination, he was contemptuously dismissive. “I regard being attacked by buffoons like Pugh and Allen- Mirehouse as an honour. If they liked me, I would begin to worry that I had taken a wrong turn. “But what people will find hard to understand,” Mike Stoddart concluded, “is that nine months after launching this personal attack on me, based, as it was, on untruths and outright lies, Cllr Pugh is still trousering his £15,000 a year cabinet SRA.”