AN INTERNAL investigation by Bexley Council has concluded there is not enough evidence against former council leader Ian Clement, to refer his use of a council credit card to the police.

But some members of the council’s audit committee, which met on Monday (August 10) to discuss the case, questioned whether there was evidence under the Fraud Act, to take the matter further.

The investigation was carried out by the head of internal audit for the council, David Hogan together with audit manager Chris Harris, and Stuart Moore principal auditor - all council employees.

But Mike Ellsmore, the council’s finance director said any suggestion the report was a “whitewash” could not be further from the truth.

He told the meeting: “There was no political interference and no councillor saw the report until it was made public.”

The report has recommended Mr Clement be asked to pay back £2,087 charged to the council on his card.

A letter demanding repayment was due to be sent on Tuesday (August 11).

Bexley will also be taking advice on pursuing a complaint to Standards for England, formerly the Standards Board, about Mr Clement’s breaches of the councillors’ code of conduct.

Mr Ellsmore warned the meeting: “Everyone will have their own views and not everyone will agree.

“But this council has to act on hard evidence and set aside any conjecture.”

Chairman of the committee Councillor Len Newton, a former leader of Bexley for more that 20 years, added: "Any conclusions we reach must be based solely on the report and information we have before us tonight."

Angela Hogan, the council’s deputy director of legal services, said there was no evidence Mr Clement had made any double claims for expenses or that he had misrepresented what the claims were for, elements which would be needed for a referral to the police.

But she said there were possible breaches of the councillors' code of conduct - for bringing the council into disrepute and for failing to use Bexley's resources to fulfil the functions of the council or the position to which he had been appointed.

Cllr Newton said he could not understand why the council had moved away from the system in place when he was leader, when if there was any hospitality to be offered, the council provided it.

He added: "To my knowledge, no one ever took anyone out to lunch."

Mr Ellsmore suggested for the future, the council needed to lay down a very precise definition of what it meant by "hospitality".

He added: "Council taxpayers need to be able tosee what we are doing."

Councillor Ken McAndrew first prompted the council to check whether Mr Clement had a Bexley card after the misuse of Mr Clement’s Greater London Authority card came to light.

He said: “Surely there is possible fraud when Mr Clement claimed for overnight accommodation when it was already paid for?

“Clearly he was trying to gain advantage by not telling the truth.”

But he was told intent would be difficult to prove.

Councillor Steven Hall asked whether there was any proof Mr Clement had misled officers when using the card; whether he had failed to give sufficient information about his claims and whether he had abused his position as council leader while using the card.

He said: "Mr Clement was foolish and too free with the public's money, and he should never be granted a position of trust again."

But Ms Hogan said to prosecute Mr Clement, the council would have to prove fraud beyond any reasonable doubt.

Councillors were angry Mr Clement had brought them into disrepute.

Councillor John Waters was one of several committee members who suggested no councillor should be allowed a credit card in future.

He said: “It demeans all of us and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.”

Councillors reluctantly accepted there may not be enough evidence to refer the matter to the police for investigation.

THE report by internal auditors into the use of a Bexley credit card by Mr Clement examined various aspects of his spending.

The first was Mr Clement’s use of the card for personal spending, in clear breach of the rules for its use, which Mr Clement had signed up to when he asked for a council card.

He had first used the card on December 28 2007 to settle a Cologne hotel bill, but contacted the council on January 3 to say he had given the hotel his council card by mistake.

He claimed as the hotel had already begun to process it, staff would not let him susbstitute hios own credit card for the transaction.

He paid the council a cheque for the £364.31 on January 8.

But there was £201 personal spending on the card's April bill and £654 in June, after Mr Clement had left Bexley to join the mayor of London's staff.

He settled both bills.

Mr Ellsmore said: ”On the first occasion this was a genuine mistake, but occasions two and three were clearly not.”

He said the council’s ability to withdraw the card had been limited because they had occured so close to Mr Clement’s resignation from the council in May 2008.

The investigation revealed Mr Clement charged Bexley for hotel accommodation and meals while attending conferences, when these had already been paid for.

These included £422.88 for attending the London Government Association conference in Birmingham when he was only entitled to claim £28.98, because the rest had already been paid.

Mr Clement also claimed £1,361 for hotel and meal expenses on his two trips to America when he attended a BT Vital Vision course on leadership.

Again, BT had already paid for most of the bill and the council is asking for £1,263.95 to be repaid.

A trip to Holland was paid for by the Netherlands British Chamber of Commerce, but Mr Clement charged £246.30 for accommodation and meals which he will now have to repay.

Councillor Alan Deadman claimed Mr Clement had known exactly what he was doing.

He said conference expenses were always paid in advance.

Cllr Deadman added: “He knew someone else was picking up the tab before he went. I call that fraud.”

And he said there were two meetings paid for on Bexley's credit card which were political in nature and nothing to do with the council's business.

One was a £53.61 lunch with James Cleverly, now London Assembly member for Bexley, but who did not hold any position at the time of the lunch in August 2007.

The other was a meeting with the chief executive of the Metropolitan Police Authority in April 2008, to discuss a possible change of London mayor.

In both cases the committee was told legal advice suggested no action should be taken over either claim for expenses.

The report also recommended Mr Clement be asked to repay £155.90 he charged for an overnight stay at the Park Plaza Hotel after attending a London dinner at the invitation of the Thames Innovation Centre.

The investigation concluded Mr Clement could have travelled home but chose not to.

It also scrutinised was the expenses Mr Clement claimed for London Councils’ business.

Mr Clement was on the executive committee of the organisation which acts as an umbrella and pressure group for London borough councils.

He charged £217 in travelling and subsistence to Bexley, which he should have charged to London Councils.

Mr Clement, when interviewed as part of the investigation, said he was unaware he could have claimed from London Councils, which has told Bexley it will not accept a retrospective claim.

Bexley has decided to write off the money.

The report also scrutinised Mr Clement’s spending on hospitality, questioning all the people he entertained to lunch or dinner at the council’s expense.

But it considered the rules laid down when Mr Clement was issued with the card were so unclear, no action could be taken.

Mr Ellsmore said it was now obvious the rules governing the use of the card had been neither explicit nor robust enough.

The report concluded because no other councillor had ever had a council credit card "insufficient attention was given to the administration and control arrangements".

The report also said it was unsatisfactory to leave relatively junior staff with the task of checking and monitoring Mr Clement's use of the card.

It added: "Staff did not feel it was their role to question the authority and judgement of the leader".

In addition to reclaiming money and making a complaint about his conduct to the Standards Board, the committee also recommended tightening the rules for the use of council cards and a ban on any councillor having one.

It said councillors should be reminded to claim from London Councils any expenses incurred on its behalf.

The committee’s findings will now go the full council.

Committee chairman said: “When Ian Clement became leader he set out to try and improve the profile of the council with almost messianic zeal.

“But he was not the messiah, he was a very naughty boy.”