DRAMATIC attempts to stage an investigation into "shambolic" consultancy spending at Worcestershire County Council has been rejected - sparking angry scenes.

After your Worcester News highlighted a leaked report revealing a raft of concerns about outside consultants in August, a lengthy debate took place at County Hall yesterday around the findings.

During the angry debate:

- All the opposition parties called for a public investigation into the report, but despite Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green Party and independent support it was voted out 31-21

- Labour group leader Councillor Peter McDonald repeatedly implied the council had exposed itself to potential "corruption", but during furious exchanges leader Councillor Adrian Hardman labelled him a "liar" and said he should go to the police if he had any evidence

- Cllr Hardman revealed he knew nothing of the report until July, two weeks before it was leaked

- The Tories rejected calls for an investigation on the grounds it has already been discussed by the senior management and all the issues have now been resolved entirely, with the processes now tightened up across the council and a new action plan has since been implemented

The document, which was marked protected, revealed criticisms from expert auditors who had trawled in-house consultancy spending.

It found examples of no audit trails, contracts being extended without politicians being told, people employed without insurance checks, no records of job interviews and practises so loose there are fears EU laws could have been breached.

Cllr McDonald said: "I was shocked and horrified when I found this out - the report clearly demonstrates how the council's finances are being put at risk by a bunch of mavericks, a bunch of cowboys."

During his speech he said taxpayers' money "had been squandered", and said "there is an opportunity for corruption to exist".

During one altercation chairman Councillor Pam Davey warned him to "moderate your language to avoid bringing the council into disrepute".

He was asked several times to apologise to the staff for his remarks, and Cllr Hardman then retorted by saying his rival was peddling a "lie".

"If Peter McDonald has any evidence of corruption he should take it straight to the police, and if not he should withdraw it otherwise it's a lie," he said.

He added: "It's absolutely true that the county council spends a considerable amount of money on consultants, they come in and provide specialist help for specific tasks.

"It (the critical report) was reported to the audit committee and discussed among the senior leadership team."

He said council bosses had since "reaffirmed it was an absolute requirement" of staff to follow procedures properly.

He said he was "not pleased" that contracts had been extended without permission from cabinet members, as is required on a 'spend' of over £50,000, but said he could not "read into the minds" of staff.

During the meeting opposition councillors tabled 13 questions to the leadership about the saga, mainly around who knew what and when it become clear there were issues.

Cllr Hardman said all staff have been reminded to follow the correct rules and he did not expect further problems.

In one example in the protected report, a contract was extended from £14,200 to £117,309, and in another it went from £30,000 to £184,000.

The worst example there was an ongoing contract, which started in March 2004 and lasted all the way to July 2013, costing £636,000, with the report saying not only was the council "unable to demonstrate value for money" but could have breached EU laws over procurement.

During the debate Councillor John Campion, cabinet member for transformation and commissioning, said: "Of course there have been failings in this particular area, but it does not lead to 'corruption' and it does not lead to the 'misuse of public money'."

He said the vast majority of it could be explained by officer errors.

The opposition wanted an investigation to be led by two in-house council watchdogs, including the audit committee, but was voted down on the basis one was not needed.

The report, compiled by internal auditors said in "many examples" consultants were not given clear, measurable targets, making it near-impossible to determine whether it was successful or not.

It also said there was "widespread non-compliance" around managers following council rules, with forms routinely not being filled to keep proper records, called form C1 of the Procurement Code.

It was based on a sample of 10 random consultancy deals.

The findings relate to the 2013/14 financial year, during which time more than £1 million was spent on outside consultants, the third time in five years it has smashed through the seven-figure mark.