'Nothing to do with us, guv,' say council about ex-mayor

They're wrong

I sent the following three questions to the Audit Committee, which sits on May 29.

On 25 March 2025, I asked the committee to detail the interactions between ex-mayor Marvin Rees, who declared he was being paid by a company he gave a billion pound contract too and by an organisation to which he gave land worth £1.35m for free, and those companies.

You said “the council has had no involvement in the former directly elected mayor’s business interests since he left office”.

This is not a reply to my question. The law requires you to know what actions took place as the mayor interacted with the organisations I mentioned.

I will list some legal implications and actions below:

Internal Audit Function

Under the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2015, every council must maintain an internal audit service. Many, including Bristol, augment this with a dedicated counter-fraud team whose remit is to “prevent, detect and investigate fraud and corruption” across the authority.

Under AAR 2015, sections 5 (1, 2 and 3), a “relevant authority must undertake an effective internal audit to evaluate the effectiveness of its risk management, control and governance processes” and this applies to members and officers and includes electronic documents and records.

Data-Matching via the National Fraud Initiative (NFI)

The Cabinet Office’s National Fraud Initiative regularly matches council datasets (e.g., payroll, council tax, benefits, Blue Badges) against other public-sector records to flag anomalies for follow-up.

I assume that could be how you identified second jobs for social workers in your fraud report.

Yet you don’t seem to refer salaried members such as the ex-mayor, who received £79k for his role and had listed five other pecuniary interests over the years.

Which brings me to my next point:

Register of Interests & Monitoring Officer

Section 29 of the Localism Act 2011 requires each Monitoring Officer to hold and publish a register of members’ pecuniary and other declarable interests . The Monitoring Officer assesses complaints about undeclared interests or bias, and can refer serious matters to a Standards Committee for formal investigation.

The mayor incorporated his company Two and Three Ltd in April 2024. At that time, he was still in office.

He may now be out of office in Bristol but just like Joe Anderson, ex-Liverpool mayor, it is his conduct while in office that is relevant. The responsibility lies with not only Rees but with the monitoring officer who has a legal obligation to maintain a compliant register of interests and to investigate procurement irregularities.

Public Contracts Regulations 2015

All council procurements must comply with UK procurement law. Misleading the process or abusing one’s position to benefit a favoured supplier can constitute “fraud by false representation” or “fraud by abuse of position” under the Fraud Act 2006.

Once again, evidence is needed to investigate such actions. This would be a matter requiring Bristol City Council’s cooperation.

Residents and members should be aware of a process for dealing with such situations.

For example,

1. Lodge a Formal Complaint

Any member of the public or a councillor can complain to Bristol’s Monitoring Officer about undeclared interests or procurement irregularities.

2. Preliminary Assessment

The Monitoring Officer, often with an Independent Person, decides whether the matter warrants formal investigation.

3. Standards Committee Hearing

If there’s prima facie evidence of a code breach, a Standards Committee or Hearings Panel conducts a hearing; it can censure or suspend a councillor if they are in post, and/or refer evidence to police whether the member is in post or not.

4. Internal Audit Review

Simultaneously, the counter-fraud team may audit the contract award, review minutes and declarations, and compile an evidence file.

5. External Referral

If criminal conduct is suspected, the Monitoring Officer or chief executive refers the case to Avon & Somerset Police (or directly to the SFO for very high-value/complex cases).

6. Criminal Investigation & Prosecution

Police (or SFO) use PACE powers to seize records, interview suspects under caution, and gather evidence. If there’s sufficient evidence, charges under the Fraud Act or Bribery Act follow, and the CPS handles prosecution.

7. Ombudsman

Parallel to any criminal case, the Ombudsman may investigate for maladministration.

I would expect the above actions to have been brought to my attention when I asked Audit about this case involving ex-mayor Marvin Rees and his payments by those he awarded contracts and land to.

The audit committee should be very worried that the council investigated lowly paid social workers but does not seem to know what to do about £1 billion contracts.

Question 1: who provided the deficient answer to my question in March about this very serious situation?

Question 2. Using the same context as above, what will the audit committee now instruct the officers (and as legally responsible, the monitoring officer) to do, to further investigate what happened while the previous administration gave a £1 billion contact to Ameresco and land worth £1.35m to Empire Fighting Chance?

Question 3. Please provide a timeline of Marvin Rees’s interactions with Ameresco and Empire Fighting Chance while in office.