In June, Derby City Council’s Tory Group Leader, Cllr Hassall was successful with his motion to oust the Leader of the Council, Cllr Shanker:

“…to help prevent Derby’s finances from being obliterated”

This was in relation to the submission by Derbyshire County Council of an “invoice” for £93.9m in respect of the Sinfin Waste Plant. It was the opinion of Cllr Hassall, and his seconder, Cllr Graves, together with 23 other Councillors that the invoice was “valid” and would result in significant financial consequences for the Council.

This was despite the advice from Senior Officers and the external auditors.

The Council has just published its Final Accounts for 2023/24 which will be discussed at the Cabinet Meeting on 14th August and the preceding cross-party Executive Scrutiny Meeting on the 12th August. The 54 page document contains no reference to the “invoice” whether by inclusion, numerically, in the finances or by way of note as a contingent liability. This reaffirms the position made by the Chief Finance Officer at the June meeting that the auditors had recommended that the “invoice” be excluded altogether ; in short it has no contractual validity and that, to include it, would be misleading.

The Audit and Governance Committee on 24th July 2024, chaired by Tory Councillor, Cllr Morgan-McGeehan, included an agenda item on the Corporate Risk Register. The latest issue, published after the receipt of the “invoice”, makes no reference to the risk of “…Derby’s finances from being obliterated“. The subject was not raised by any of the Councillors on the Committee despite the majority opinion being that it would be a serious issue.

Derbyshire County Council released its 2023/24 Financial Outturn report on 10th July 2024; the finances did not include the income of £93.9m nor any reference to the “invoice.”

Comment

Hassall stated in the Derby Telegraph in June:

“The fact we kept hearing that the council questions the validity of the £93.9m invoice is irrelevant. It’s like me receiving a parking ticket and saying it’s invalid – it is purely an opinion and doesn’t negate the fact that there is still a bill to be paid.”

Hassall fails to understand the key difference. A valid parking ticket fine results from a breach of a published contract that is transparent and visible. It ceases to be valid where there is no transparency nor a contract defining the charges – much like the County Council “invoice”.

It was always evident to any casual observer that Hassall’s intentions were opportunistic despite the facts and the overwhelming professional opinion stacked against him. Subsequent events have revealed further layers which support this conclusion.