Report back on July meeting of Copeland Council
As mentioned, Copeland Borough council met at Millom School this afternoon.
Main items discussed included:
1) The Audit report on Housing
In April this year the Audit Commission published a scathing report on Copeland's Housing policy. This which was the most critical official report on any council service I have seen in the 21 years years since I was first elected as a councillor.
Councillors asked a large number of questions about the measures being taken to correct the many criticisms made by the audit commission including the need to review policy on home improvement grants, using planning policy to generate more affordable housing, diversity in housing provision, the lack of a local women's refuge, and many others. The Strategic Housing Panel will be meeting tomorrow to discuss the action plan.
2) Copeland Borough Council's Accounts
It is now almost the end of July 2008, nearly a third of the way through the 2008/9 financial year. The council's accounts for 2006/7 and 2007/8 have not yet been cleared by the auditors despite tens of thousands of pounds being spent on external assistance. Earlier this month, the Audit Commission had to ask the council to correct a report to the council's executive which wrongly stated that the Auditor had found in the council's favour in respect of a complaint about the 2006/7 accounts. (In fact not even a provisional judgement has been made yet.)
Politicians like myself have criticised the European Union because it is years since the Court of Auditors gave the EU accounts a completely clean and unqualified signoff - and I stand by that criticism. It isn't acceptable that we have the sort of problems now being experienced with Copeland Borough Council's accounts either (nor Cumbria County Council, where the Leader of the Council has just sacked the deputy leader for failing to resolve an accounting problem).
I proposed a motion this afternoon at Copeland Council which required the officers to prepare a full report for all councillors which would include
* how the council got into this situation,
* what is being done to resolve it,
* how much this will cost and what effect there will be on council finances
* what can be done to ensure it does not happen again,
* whether reports on the subject to councillors were accurate and if not why not
I wanted the report circulated to all councillors to inform a debate at the next full council (in about six weeks.)
The Labour administration accepted in full those parts of my motion which called for a report, but deleted those parts which specified a timescale for the report to be produced and specified where and when the issue will be debated.
I am pleased that we will at least get a full accounting about what has happened but am concerned that the fairly generous timescale in my motion was not accepted and remain convinced that we need a comprehensive debate at full council as soon as we have the necessary facts to inform such a debate, and sooner rather than later.
Main items discussed included:
1) The Audit report on Housing
In April this year the Audit Commission published a scathing report on Copeland's Housing policy. This which was the most critical official report on any council service I have seen in the 21 years years since I was first elected as a councillor.
Councillors asked a large number of questions about the measures being taken to correct the many criticisms made by the audit commission including the need to review policy on home improvement grants, using planning policy to generate more affordable housing, diversity in housing provision, the lack of a local women's refuge, and many others. The Strategic Housing Panel will be meeting tomorrow to discuss the action plan.
2) Copeland Borough Council's Accounts
It is now almost the end of July 2008, nearly a third of the way through the 2008/9 financial year. The council's accounts for 2006/7 and 2007/8 have not yet been cleared by the auditors despite tens of thousands of pounds being spent on external assistance. Earlier this month, the Audit Commission had to ask the council to correct a report to the council's executive which wrongly stated that the Auditor had found in the council's favour in respect of a complaint about the 2006/7 accounts. (In fact not even a provisional judgement has been made yet.)
Politicians like myself have criticised the European Union because it is years since the Court of Auditors gave the EU accounts a completely clean and unqualified signoff - and I stand by that criticism. It isn't acceptable that we have the sort of problems now being experienced with Copeland Borough Council's accounts either (nor Cumbria County Council, where the Leader of the Council has just sacked the deputy leader for failing to resolve an accounting problem).
I proposed a motion this afternoon at Copeland Council which required the officers to prepare a full report for all councillors which would include
* how the council got into this situation,
* what is being done to resolve it,
* how much this will cost and what effect there will be on council finances
* what can be done to ensure it does not happen again,
* whether reports on the subject to councillors were accurate and if not why not
I wanted the report circulated to all councillors to inform a debate at the next full council (in about six weeks.)
The Labour administration accepted in full those parts of my motion which called for a report, but deleted those parts which specified a timescale for the report to be produced and specified where and when the issue will be debated.
I am pleased that we will at least get a full accounting about what has happened but am concerned that the fairly generous timescale in my motion was not accepted and remain convinced that we need a comprehensive debate at full council as soon as we have the necessary facts to inform such a debate, and sooner rather than later.
Comments