National Audit Office: Re: Public Spending for Operation Grange

Dear Ms Havern,
 
I wrote to you on 1 July to explain that, in response to another request that we had received, we had decided to make further enquiries with the Home Office in respect of the special grant funding for Operation Grange and that these enquiries were ongoing.  Our work is continuing and to provide you with a substantive response, we will require more time to assess the information that we are obtaining.   I am therefore writing to update you that we would now expect to respond more fully to the points that you raise by the end of August. I apologise for the delay.
 
Regards
 
Tom McDonald
 
 
Tom McDonald, Director, Home Affairs VFM Audit

National Audit Office, 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, Victoria, London, SW1W 9SP
| www.nao.org.uk

-------------------

Hmmmm...usually I'd have had a standard 'bugger orf' letter by now.
Plus, we've now got a new Prime Minister and a new Home Secretary.

Well done Jill and fingers crossed that we'll get some sense this time.

Jill Havern wrote:Dear Ms Havern,
 
I wrote to you on 1 July to explain that, in response to another request that we had received, we had decided to make further enquiries with the Home Office in respect of the special grant funding for Operation Grange and that these enquiries were ongoing.  Our work is continuing and to provide you with a substantive response, we will require more time to assess the information that we are obtaining.   I am therefore writing to update you that we would now expect to respond more fully to the points that you raise by the end of August. I apologise for the delay.
 
Regards
 
Tom McDonald
 
 
Tom McDonald, Director, Home Affairs VFM Audit

National Audit Office, 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, Victoria, London, SW1W 9SP
| www.nao.org.uk

Reminder email sent today.

Dear Ms Havern 

Due to you know sickness/holidays/can't be bothered/forgot/hoped you'd forgotten/ignoring you in the hope you'll go away/lost your letter/email/information ( blah blah blah ) 
Unfortunately our enquiries are still ongoing , just like Grange ! So at the moment we cannot give you the substantive reply we ( cough ) promised .
Please note we didn't say which August . .

Regards      

  Oh dear sandancer you've been here too long!

You know the scripts off by heart  

Mon, Sep 9, 2019 5:15 pm

Dear Ms Havern,
 
Further to my e-mail of 25 July, I am writing to confirm that we have completed our enquiries with the Home Office and I am now able to respond to the questions that you have raised specifically in relation to the administration of special grants for the continued funding of Operation Grange.

I thought it might be helpful to set out the role and remit of the National Audit Office (NAO). The NAO is completely independent of government and has two main functions. The first is to certify the accounts of government departments and other central government bodies and to express an opinion on those accounts. As a part of this routine annual external audit, we examine Special Grants using a risk-based approach. The second is to carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which government departments and other public sector bodies have used their resources. In each case the results are reported to Parliament. Our remit is restricted in that we cannot question the merits of government policies. Therefore, the work we have undertaken in response to your correspondence has focused on establishing the facts around the Home Office’s use of Special Grant funding in support of Operation Grange. In doing so, we have also sought to ensure that we do not prejudice the ongoing police investigation.
 
We have considered the funding provided for Operation Grange against the Home Office’s own criteria for administering Special Grants. The criteria require any bid for funding to set out in detail how the funding will be used. Among other things the criteria also stipulate that the Home Office will normally consider requests for Special Grant funding to help meet costs where a force expects to incur expenditure that reaches 1% of its budget. However, the rules for such funding allow ministers discretion to waive this requirement. In this instance, while the costs of Operation Grange are significantly under 1% of the Metropolitan Police’s budget, Ministers have exercised their discretion to commission this investigation to draw on the specialist skills of the Metropolitan Police’s investigations team.
 
In cases where Special Grant funding is approved, forces are required to demonstrate that their arrangements for managing the expenditure meet the principles of the Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance. You had expressed concern about whether the funding has produced results and is delivering value for money. To address this, we have considered the governance and oversight arrangements in place to assess how this funding is being used. These arrangements typically include consideration of the expected activities that the funding will enable. Having reviewed appropriate evidence, we can confirm that there is a dedicated team within the Home Office whose role is to manage Special Grant funding. As with other Special Grants, their responsibilities in relation to Operation Grange include regular liaison with the Metropolitan Police investigation team to assess progress, challenging the use of funds as necessary and considering what, if any, additional funding may be required. The oversight arrangements have operated effectively and the Home Office team has not identified any instances of funds being misused.
 
There are separate mechanisms in place to evaluate the use of Special Grant funding, including for Operation Grange. Firstly, the Home Office’s dedicated team obtain and check submissions from the Metropolitan Police on how the funds have been used and to continuously monitor progress. Furthermore, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) also undertake an examination on the use of these funds. There is no indication from the evidence that we have examined that these funds have not been used for the purposes intended set out in the application for Special Grant funding. These oversight arrangements are sufficiently robust, timely and regular to ensure that spending is properly monitored. The Home Office has been able to provide financial reports demonstrating the oversight that they exercise.
 
In conclusion, therefore, we are satisfied that the Home Office has used Special Grant funding in support of Operation Grange in accordance with its own guidance and has exercised adequate oversight of related expenditure by the Metropolitan Police. From our review of the funding and governance arrangements as well as our annual audits of the Home Office financial statements, we have not identified any areas of concern in relation to this expenditure.
 
Regards
 
Tom McDonald
 
Tom McDonald, Director, Home Affairs VFM Audit

National Audit Office, 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, Victoria, London, SW1W 9SP
| www.nao.org.uk

so bugger off

crusader wrote:so bugger off

Yeah, all our letters end up in the 'bugger off' bin.

But at least another Government department is aware of the cover up and are doing bugger all about it.

Sorry Madeleine

Onwards and upwards!

In short - mind your own bloody business.

That's a lot of words used to say bugger all.

Typical!

Where has the funding grants to Operation Grange been expended? Why, a heavy duty shredder of course.

" Economy , efficiency and effectiveness " 

No economy on words , 

Efficiency  and effectiveness , just more words that sound good . 

Our remit is restricted , ! 

No ? Really ? Never have guessed it , sounds just like Operation Grange . 
Lets mention every department we can think of , sounds good on paper but means absolutely nothing . 

" Right chaps , that's another dealt with who's on the cake run ? " 

" Oh yea , can we get funding for a new shredder , this one keeps making an annoying whine ?"