Medway’s Conservative councillors today faced calls for an investigation into the presentation of a ‘fake’ cheque to the Sunlight Centre.

Gillingham and Rainham MP, Paul Clark said councillors acted improperly when they presented a cheque for £50,000 to the Sunlight Centre having just received a Government grant for the same amount, set aside for a specific scheme.

He is calling on the Standards Board for England to look into the actions of the councillors involved and determine whether any wrong-doing occurred.

The Sunlight Centre has been facing financial difficulty since lottery funding ran out late in 2006, putting many vital projects at risk.

Medway Council was one of 77 areas across the country to be given a grant to improve parenting provision and help reduce anti-social behaviour.

The grant was allocated under the Government’s Respect campaign, which Paul Clark MP is championing locally.

In November, two senior Conservative Cabinet members, Les Wicks, responsible for Children’s Services and Wendy Purdy, responsible for Adult Service along with Gillingham Councillor Rehman Chishti presented the cheque to Peter Holbrook, Chief Executive of the Sunlight Trust.

The centre was shocked to discover the cheque had actually been ‘symbolic’, despite no mention of this at the presentation photo call.

Medway’s Conservative group later claimed that they wanted Mr Clark to convince the Home Office that the money should be used to plug the centres finances, and not for reducing anti-social behaviour.

To access the money, Medway Council submitted two bids to the Home Office. The first set out how the money could be used as originally intended, whilst the second option asked for flexibility for the money to be handed to the Sunlight Centre.

Mr Clark claims that a letter sent to Neil Davies, Chief Executive of Medway Council from the Home Office clearly explained what the money was to be used for.

"It should be used to employ parenting practitioners able to deliver structured parenting programmes…they will help you prevent involvement in anti-social behaviour through earlier referrals to parenting provision,; will ensure good links between you anti-social behaviour team and other services providing parenting support…and help improve strategic planning and commissioning in your area," explained the Home Office guidance.

The letter also says the parenting practitioners "should be based in or clearly linked to anti-social behaviour teams."

In November, Mr Davies was informed by the Gillingham Member of Parliament that the Sunlight bid was likely to be turned down. He asked Mr Davies to consider providing a loan to the community centre as an emergency measure.

Only after a meeting with the Home Office last week, when it became clear the money would not be forthcoming, did Medway Council seriously consider the loan option.

In the meantime, the centre has been unable to plan services or to confirm future staffing arrangements because of the financial uncertainty.

Mr Clark said: “If the Council had pursued the loan option back in November, we would not be in this position now. The Conservative Cabinet knew their bid would fail and wanted it to, so they could lay the blame at Government’s door.”

Confusion over the symbolic cheque was further compounded by Councillor Chishti, who confidently informed the media in December that he was “virtually 100 per cent certain”  that the money would be forthcoming implying that the Councillors would honour the cheque and provide a genuine, rather than symbolic, £50,000 to help the centre.

Away from the media spotlight the Sunlight Centre were informed on Monday 5 March that this would not be the case.

Mr Clark says the Standards Board for England, which is responsible for elected members’ behaviour, could help to answer some key questions.

He said: “The Board could use its authority to investigate the following matters. Firstly, why did Medway Council make a bid asking permission to do give the money to the Sunlight Centre knowing full well it wasn’t intended for such a use, if not to be able to blame the Government when the money wasn't forthcoming? Secondly, if the cheque was, as claimed by Medway Council, a political stunt, why was it not made clear to the Sunlight Trust at the time and why were officers allowed to submit a bid that gave that “stunt” credibility?”

Mr Clark is also concerned that the option of a loan was not pursued earlier, and claims that if the cheque was actually a Conservative party cheque and not from Medway Council, then the Tories themselves should stump up the cash.

It is understood that a complaint to the Standards Board could question whether any of the following Code of Conduct standards were breached:

• doing something to prevent those who work for the authority from being unbiased
• damaging the reputation of their office or authority
• using their position improperly, to their own or someone else's advantage or disadvantage
• allowing their authority's resources to be misused for the activities of a registered political party

A number of local residents who use the Sunlight Centre are thought to have the papers to submit to the Standards Board.

It will then be for the body to decide what action should be taken and who should investigate. The Standards Board may oversee any investigation, or it may ask the local authority or local monitoring officer to investigate.

Mr Clark said: “Over half of people asked in a recent poll said poor parenting is one of the key causes of anti-social behaviour. The same proportion say better parenting would do most to reduce crime. So, it is important we intervene where those at risk of anti-social behaviour could benefit, because it benefits the whole community. If the Tories were making a party-political point they should have told the Sunlight Centre in the first place.”

“It was clear what the money was to be used for. Medway Council’s defence is that the fake cheque was a political stunt. If it was, how on earth were officers ever persuaded to submit a bid to the Home Office for funding on this basis? It works entirely against the principle that officers should be unbiased in making such decision.

“As for the claim that Respect is a gimmick I have set up vehicles for community empowerment, Respect Action Groups, which bring residents and those agencies who fight crime and disorder face to face. For the first time in Medway it gives people the ability to hold to account those working in the public interest, and to have a say about how their community is policed. That is real progress, not a gimmick.”
 
<ENDS>
Notes to Editors
1. For further info ring Scott Young 020 7219 5207