Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 139)
WEDNESDAY 10 MAY 2000
MR ROBIN
YOUNG AND
MR TIMOTHY
HORNSBY
120. That often has not happened in some cases
where there was a slight worry about whether the grant was being
properly used. Have you taken anyone to court, have you tried
to enforce through the courts a need for these assessments?
(Mr Hornsby) The situation, clearly analysed in the
report, is that there have been unfortunate and in some cases
long delays, but we have got there in the end. We have now significantly
stiffened our procedures. If after four weeks the end-of-grant
report, which is the crucial one, does not arrive, grant officers
are instructed to make three telephone calls and discover what
has happened. If at the end of the three telephone calls they
have still not replied, they will be sent a letter. If after that
we still do not get it, they will be sent a letter by lawyers
saying that they are in breach of terms and conditions and unless
we are sent it we will sue for the return of the grant on the
ground that there has been non-fulfilment.
121. Have any lawyers' letters gone out?
(Mr Hornsby) We have not got into that situation yet.
122. Even though some of them have been well
over a year?
(Mr Hornsby) Indeed. It is precisely because of that
that we are tightening the system.
123. You could presumably have sent lawyers'
letters for some of those, if you chose to?
(Mr Hornsby) Yes.
124. It would not have stopped you in previous
times, given that they were 13 months late or more; you could
have, but you decided not to?
(Mr Hornsby) Yes.
125. When the premises turn out to be smaller
than expected and you have offered a grant and, therefore, it
is expected that fewer clients will be able to use the premises,
do you in those circumstances reduce the grant?
(Mr Hornsby) It depends what the grant was for. If
in the model you suggest we had tied the grant to a particular
number or level of beneficiaries and in the event, for one reason
or another, that was not happening, we would certainly think of
adjusting the grant. If, say, the grant is to re-roof a community
hall and it is not specifically tied to the volume of usage of
the hall—
126. I am talking about buying a premises which
turns out for some reason to be a small one.
(Mr Hornsby) Yes.
127. The original premises they cannot get,
they are gazumped, as you mentioned earlier.
(Mr Hornsby) Yes.
128. They go for a different premises, it is
smaller, it can only take perhaps 50 clients as opposed to the
75 it was going to take. Would you then reduce the grant? Have
you reduced grants in that sort of case?
(Mr Hornsby) We have recovered grants to the tune
of just under half a million.
129. I am not talking about recovering grants
because that would only happen presumably once you paid them out.
What I am talking about is a case in which you offer a grant on
the basis that a particular building will be purchased. It then
is not purchased, something else is purchased instead which is
smaller, would you then reduce the grant? "I am sorry, you
obviously cannot go ahead with your original plans so we are not
going to give you so much grant"?
(Mr Hornsby) I do take the point and I do not want
to sound as if I am evading it. It depends a bit on the case.
It may be with smaller premises you could still serve the same
number of clients by adjusting times and so on.
130. Let me put the question another way. Have
you ever reduced such a grant?
(Mr Hornsby) Yes. We have reduced grants in cases
where we consider we are not getting the full coverage that—
131. You are not getting or will not get? I
am not talking about a case in which after which you have discovered
something.
(Mr Hornsby) No. If it becomes clear that the scheme
is significantly scaled down, and this happens, we will then adjust
the grant proportionately. Unless, as I say, one does not want
to be unreasonable as a funder, if people come back and say they
can work round or they ask for a grant variation order, we will
look at the application.
132. You would decide.
(Mr Hornsby) We would do.
133. In paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18 we are told
about the ones where the grant offered has been under spent for
some reason. At paragraph 2.17 it implies that quite a lot of
money has been recovered.
(Mr Hornsby) 2.17?
134. Yes, 2.17. It implies quite a lot of money
has been recovered in some cases where the grant was under spent.
(Mr Hornsby) Yes.
135. From the looks of things none of those
cases occurred in the NAO's sample.
(Mr Hornsby) That is true.
136. Those five, the money was all allowed to
be spent by the organisation concerned?
(Mr Hornsby) Yes.
137. It was just pure chance that money seems
to cover quite a lot of cases but none of that turned out there?
(Mr Hornsby) Indeed. As you say, slightly over three
quarters of a million pounds has been clawed back as an under
spend. It so happened in the particular cases when the NAO drilled
down—this is always a disadvantage of a sample in a sense—in
the cases they chose the under spend was relatively modest. The
groups produced positive proposals for putting that under spend
to an effective part of the scheme and we agreed.
138. Can I ask just one final question then
on that. The end of paragraph 2.18 says that you were satisfied
that the money would add value. Now, if you spend money on almost
anything you are going to add some value. My question is was that
tested against how you could have used that money in other cases
where perhaps you might have got a different value, perhaps an
enhanced value?
(Mr Hornsby) I think the honest answer to that is
no because the only way you can do that would be to look at the
amount of under spend we were shifting and say "What would
that buy us elsewhere for other grants?" I think the frank
answer is that I just do not think it is practical to do that.
What we want to be assured is that under spend goes to the project
and that it is not dead money, otherwise we would claw it back,
it really enhances. It is real added value and we are getting
as a result really good value for money from that project. I do
take the point of your question, I do not see how you could compare
that with hypothetically what it might buy us elsewhere.
Mr Williams
139. Before I go to Mr Davidson, following on
the points about the exchange of property values and property
having been sold, do you think that when you get your computerised
register, late in the autumn hopefully—
(Mr Hornsby) Yes?
| 
