Council allowance spend 'illegal'

The council fell short of expected standards, the auditor found

Cardiff Council illegally spent millions increasing councillors' allowances, says a report by auditors.

The Wales Audit Office says the council unlawfully spent £2.7m in allowances between 1996 and 2001.

Auditor Janet Jones said while the council failed to follow procedure, nobody acted dishonestly, but it should look at claiming back the money.

The council said it made legal errors in spending £150,000 and it was seeking repayment of the money.

The council also unlawfully spent £75,250 in pay for some of its officers, said the auditor's report.

It criticised the council for "falling short of the standards of conduct that the public were entitled to expect".

The council could have taken exactly the same decisions and spent the same amount of money lawfully Cardiff Council

Ms Jones said: "There is a compelling case to bring these matters to the attention of the public, which is why I have issued today's report.

"Taxpayers have a right to know if their money has been spent unlawfully.

"It is vital that, wherever public money is spent, there must be an openness and transparency of action."

Framework

A spokeswoman for the council said: "The report formalises the decision of the High Court in January 2005, that the council made legal errors in the way it spent £150,000.

"The council has set up a recovery committee which is seeking the repayment of this money.

"The key point is that there was no loss to the council.

"If these legal issues had been picked up when they first arose, back as far as 1995, the council could have taken exactly the same decisions and spent the same amount of money lawfully."

Responding to the report, the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) said the emergence of cabinet structures and full-time councillors "dramatically recast" the role of elected members and their range of duties and responsibilities.

It also noted until a report published in 2001, there was no Welsh framework for calculating allowances, and that one still does not exist in England.

The WLGA also highlighted that councillors and officers had, as required, taken legal advice before making all their decisions and as the report noted, had acted in good faith.

The response added: "The association deems it reasonable that members and officers are entitled to rely on legal advice and act on legal advice.

"It is therefore somewhat at odds for the auditor to criticise members and officers if that advice is subsequently proved to be wrong."