Council failures blamed as watchdog refuses to sign off government accounts
Late and inadequate filing by English councils has been blamed by the National Audit Office (NAO) for leaving it unable to vet government accounts for 2023 to 2024.
Only 4pc of the 407 cash-strapped local councils submitted audited data to the watchdog. Meanwhile, 55pc shared figures based on unaudited accounts and 41pc sent no data at all.
It marks an even worse track record than the previous year, when 10pc of English councils shared numbers that were up to the watchdog's standards.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the MP who chairs the public accounts committee, branded the situation 'wholly unsatisfactory' and said it posed a threat to the Government's finances.
He warned: 'Yet again, failures in local authority audit have led to unacceptable levels of missing and unaudited data. This lack of transparency and ability to hold councils to account will only deepen the current precarious state of local government finances.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer and Zelensky say Alaska talks present a ‘viable chance' for Ukraine
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met in Downing Street on Thursday, affirming their 'strong resolve' to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It comes ahead of a scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Downing Street said both Sir Keir and Mr Zelensky agreed that the Alaska talks 'present a viable chance to make progress as long as [Mr] Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace'. However, there are concerns that the US and Russia might attempt to decide the war's conclusion without Ukraine's direct participation. Mr Trump has warned of "severe consequences" if the Russian leader does not agree to peace, while Mr Putin has hinted at discussions on nuclear arms control.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Aviva took six months to transfer my pension - and it cost me £7,000: SALLY SORTS IT
I had three pensions with Aviva worth £140,607 that I wanted to transfer to investment firm Vanguard. I made the request on November 27 last year, as I wanted the money in my Vanguard account in good time by April 5, 2025, so I could have some income from it in that tax year. However, this was not possible because Aviva delayed transferring them. Please can you help? G.W., Maidstone, Kent. Sally Hamilton replies: When you asked to transfer your pensions from Aviva, Vanguard suggested it would take around four to eight weeks. This gave you plenty of breathing space – or so you thought – to get the transaction done, so you could take an income from the transferred pot before the tax year ended. But it wasn't until April 2 – with just three days left of the last tax year – that Aviva finally told you by letter that the payment had been issued, including £2,638 in late interest. You checked your Aviva account online and found it was indeed closed, with no funds remaining. But to your frustration it had not reached Vanguard. The delays continued. Two weeks (and nine chasing phone calls to Aviva customer service) later, Aviva revealed that the payment couldn't be made as the bank had not authorised it. It gave no explanation but told you not to worry as it would go through in a couple of days. It didn't. Your blood pressure climbed when staff said it would take four weeks to investigate your complaint. After four weeks your frustration was off the charts, when they told you they were still looking into it and asked you to allow them another four weeks. All this time you had neither access to your pension – and nor was it invested. Every time you tried to speak to someone with authority, you ended going round in circles, with calls either not returned – or missed – and when you called back, the manager who had left you a message wasn't known to the call handler. It was time for me to give Aviva a serious prod. Within a few days Aviva finally got a grip on your case and your money landed with Vanguard a few days later. Details were not given of what exactly went wrong except the company admitted a blunder. A spokesman says: 'We are extremely sorry for the delay in transferring Mr W's pensions, and the distress this has caused him. 'This was due to an error on our part. I can confirm that the full payment has now been transferred and received by Vanguard.' Last week, Aviva finally completed a loss assessment after liaising with Vanguard. This took several weeks of to-ing and fro-ing between it and Vanguard. In the end, taking into account late and lost interest, plus potential tax liability faced by you for taking the money in the current tax year rather than last year as planned, plus £750 as an apology, you have received total recompense of £8,096. Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@ — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
