MPs (and EDDC’s Standards committee) “marks its own homework”

Bear in mind when you read this that lay members of EDDC’s Standards acommittee are also not allowed to vote on matters put before them

Two former parliamentary standards commissioners have backed calls for an overhaul of the committee that regulates the conduct of MPs.
Sir Philip Mawer and John Lyon both warned that “lay” members of the panel should be allowed to vote on decisions in order to check the power of MPs in regulating themselves.

In a written submission to the Commons standards committee, Sir Philip warned that its lay members were currently little more than “second class citizens”, fuelling criticism that MPs are “retaining the power of decision about their colleagues firmly in their own hands”.

On Monday Mr Lyon, the immediate predecessor of Kathryn Hudson, the current commissioner, said he now also supported the move.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12193885/Sleaze-watchdogs-back-calls-to-stop-MPs-marking-own-homework.html

Dorset county councillors wants nine councils reduced to two

A “clear majority” of county councillors in Dorset have backed proposals to reduce the number of councils in the county from nine to two.

More than half (54%) also backed there being one unitary council for the current county council area and one for Bournemouth and Poole.

A second option – for there to be one unitary council for the area of East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland and one for Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch – attracted 41% of the votes.
Other options were considered and rejected. These were for: a single pan-Dorset unitary authority for Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole; two other options for separate unitary authorities; and of making no change to the current structure.

Dorset County Council stressed that the vote was not a binding decision. “The council voted unanimously do more work on the preferred options and a report will be brought to its next meeting with a view to developing a full business case,” it said.

It also noted that there would be a public consultation on any plans, and that this was likely to be held during the summer of 2016.

Cllr Robert Gould, Leader of Dorset County Council, said: “We had a thorough debate in which nearly all county councillors had their say. It was encouraging to see agreement that we need to change and do things better for the people of Dorset.

“We now have a clear consensus around having one, new council serving the whole ‘shire’ Dorset area, with an enhanced role for town and parish councils to deliver local services and strengthen their identity.

“This would simplify the structure of local government for residents, save money and help our case for a really ambitious devolution deal for Dorset.”
Cllr Gould added: “We will continue to work with the other Dorset councils to develop a solution for the whole county. A key part of this will be consulting with local people to make sure everyone has a chance to be involved.

“This is a great opportunity for the whole of Dorset to create something that supports the future needs and ambitions of the county.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26284:dorset-county-councillors-back-cut-in-number-of-councils-from-nine-to-two&catid=59&Itemid=27

Councils could become spies – and redundant council offices could become community spaces (right!)

“Councils could place sensors in household rubbish bins which would alert GPs if pensioners fail to take their rubbish out for a fortnight, a Government backed report has found.

Within a decade every bin could have a sensor, the forecast suggests as it sets out how everything from reporting missed rubbish collections to ordering parking permits could be digitised to save money for cash-strapped local councils.

It predicts savings of £14.7 million if authorities make use of new technologies, automating backroom functions thus saving money through job cuts.

The vision for councils is set out by innovation charity Nesta in conjunction with the Public Service Transformation Network, established by the Coalition Government in 2013 and funded by Whitehall as a way to help public services provide value for money.

Town halls would “no longer directly provide most local services”, but would become “digital by default” and act as an online broker, with redundant offices and civic buildings instead becoming community spaces.

The rubbish bin proposal would protect frail elderly residents, the report suggests, because if a pensioner did not put their bins out for two weeks in a row, an alert would be triggered to the local GP surgery so a doctor could check they were healthy.

The fictional example is given of a septuagenarian retired bus driver, Martin, who in 2025 is “far from being a ‘digital native’”.

If Martin doesn’t put his rubbish out for two weeks in a row, this is automatically registered on the council’s system through the sensors in his bins,” it suggests.

“The integrated system knows Martin is in his 70s and has mobility issues so automatically generates a notification for his GP that Martin might need support. From this, a GP can make a quick phone call to check everything is okay.”

The report foresees “instant data sharing across services unless people explicitly opt out”, while noting that such advances would tread a “fine line” between efficiency and the public’s fears over privacy.

Technology could also enable social workers to step in sooner, with algorithms that could automatically alert authorities to children and others at risk of neglect or abuse, or families likely to become homeless.
Local authorities in Bath and North East Somerset already use sensors in public bins to capture data so that they are only collected when they are full.

Islington Council came under fire in 2008 for going through households’ rubbish without seeking permission to investigate whether people were recycling enough.

Campaigners have raised concerns about increased surveillance of residents by councils, especially of vulnerable elderrly people.

Daniel Nesbitt research director of Big Brother Watch said “With big data comes big responsibility, these proposals may sound great on paper but as more of our devices start to analyse information about us the opportunities for monitoring and profiling are clear to see.

“Any potential scheme involving the collection of data can lead to assumptions being made about individuals, these assumptions may not be correct.

“As more devices become connected and as more data is created, it’s vital that people are told exactly what using these devices will mean for them.
“It is critical that people understand what they are signing up to and how much they will be giving away before giving their consent, this is even more important when it involves the elderly or vulnerable.”

Modelling commissioned by Nesta from Social Finance suggested councils could save up to 13% of total spending by 2025 – £14.7 billion based on 2015/16 totals.

A Government spokesman said: “This is research was done in conjunction with the Public Service Transformation Network and gives examples on how councils can use technology to make efficiencies and deliver better services for local people.

“This is one of many examples of what a number of councils are doing across the country and is not central Government policy.”

Sensible use of technology can deliver cost savings, the spokesman said, adding: “We will continue to work with local government to help provide better digital services for local taxpayers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/12194023/Councils-could-snoop-on-elderly-residents-with-sensors-in-their-bins-to-see-if-they-put-out-the-rubbish.html

To vote in EU referendum you must be registered by 18 April 2016

Registration online is quick and easy and can be done here:

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

You will need your National Insurance Number (usually found on pay slips if you do not have a record of it) and it takes about 5 minutes.

It’s private landlords that profit from housing benefit – not tenants

“[Dispatches] airing on Channel 4, investigates how private landlords are now the fastest growing provider of accommodation for housing benefit tenants, receiving £9 billion a year from public funds.

…the programme also reveals how private landlords now own 40 per cent of all former council houses, leading to fears of a shortage in social housing.

Dr Victoria Cooper, lecturer in Social Policy at the Open University, tells the programme: ‘Approximately 40 per cent of the housing benefit budget is spent on the private rented sector.

‘What we’re seeing is a redistribution of wealth and while public funds were previously spent within social housing and then used to reinvest to expand that social housing, this is no longer the case.

‘With the private rented sector the money isn’t redistributed and it simply goes into the pockets of private landlords.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490869/Landlords-making-1m-year-housing-benefits-Channel-4-s-Dispatches-shows-exploiting-hand-outs-forcing-tenants-live-dangerous-accommodation.html

Local Enterprise Parttnerships: a government briefing paper

Some quotes from the paper, published in December 2015:

LEPs are non-statutory bodies, and so have a great deal of discretion in how their membership is composed, though they must be chaired by a business person and at least half of their members must be from the private sector.” …

“In an April 2013 interview Business Secretary Vince Cable argued that big decisions on funding must be administered from Whitehall on the basis that some LEPs had very small numbers of business people on their boards and were not publicly accountable and unsuited to manage large amounts of public money.” …

Prior to the 2015 election, Labour stated if elected they would retain LEPs, stating they would work to “improve LEPs, not abolish them” while outlining concerns over their “accountability and capacity to deliver.” …

“Professor Bob Bennett, a Cambridge academic specialising in economic geography has said that there is a “danger that (LEPs) require too much effort, for too little return” and that more than “£2 billion needs to be invested in LEPs and Enterprise Zones in order to stimulate growth and jobs around the UK”.36 Similarly, a report by the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies at the University of Newcastle argues LEPs will struggle to exercise substantive influence upon local economic growth on account of “the lack of long-term vision and strategy for their strategic development.”

“The Interim Government response was published in July 2013. While acknowledging the role LEPs play in regional economic growth, it raised concerns over their accountability. In turn, it recommended a single BIS Minister be made responsible and accountable for LEPs and that LEPs should have a single point of contact within the Department and LEPs’ objective setting processes are monitored to ensure they remain fit for purpose and have the capability to access future funding.” …

“In December 2013, The National Audit Office published a report titled Funding and structures for local economic growth, examining how effective the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been in supporting economic growth and providing value for money. The report states it has not yet been demonstrated that Local Enterprise Partnerships “are capable of delivering value for money.” Quoting evidence complied by BIS, the report states that of the 39 LEPs, seventeen made a strong case that they represent a functional economic area, sixteen made a plausible case, four made a weak case and no information was held on the remaining two.

The report states different LEPs have made progress at different rates. Areas of concern include weaknesses in leadership, changes in board membership, not taking advantage of available funding and insufficient administrative capacity.

In May 2014, the Public Accounts Committee published the report Promoting Economic Growth Locally, assessing the extent to which the coalition government’s local growth programmes had achieved their stated aims. The report expresses concern on “the lack of transparency of LEPs” and central Government’s reliance on “self-reported information” as a means of appraising their success.”

Click to access SN05651.pdf

Hinkley C: a costly mistake and only France can pull the plug

Our Local Enterprise Partnership – to which major decisions about housing, health and infrastructure in Devon and Somerset will be devolved without any consultation of the public – has, not surprisingly, chosen the new Hinkley C nuclear plant in Somerset as its mega-vanity project. Not surprising because at least two (and maybe more) board members have nuclear interests.

A long article in today’s Guardian shows the total folly of the project and says only France can pull the plug on it as George Osborne cannot afford to lose face by doing it, nor can he allow the Chinese investors to do the same.

“Business situations are often described as zero-sum, or win-win. Hinkley Point, already the site of a power station in Somerset, is a rare case where the project could be damaging to both customers and investors. It would saddle British taxpayers with highly expensive power, and risk bankrupting a major French company, whose finances are already shaky. The government should cancel the deal.”

http://gu.com/p/4hfq8

“Town planning gives us the worst of all worlds”

Keith Rossiter in today’s Western Morning News:

“A walk through any Westcountry market town at 8am on a weekday ought to be enough to convince us that Matthew Taylor, the former Truro and St Austell MP, is talking sense.

Matthew, now Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, says our housing policy is sick – and those pointless traffic jams in what should be rights be quiet country towns are the most obvious symptoms.

The worst of the traffic congestion comes from the new housing estates that ring our historic towns like encircling armies.

You can’t blame the people who live in these estates – like all of us, they are just looking for an affordable place to live.

But their homes are not affordable – the policy of allowing only this suburban doughnut of development has driven up prices to the point that in some parts of the country a single building plot will set you back £500,000.

And their homes are not even desirable, whatever the developer’s adverts say. They are increasingly tiny – the smallest in Europe, bar flat-dwelling Italy and Romania. They must drive into town because they have no schools, shops or jobs, and usually their streets aren’t even leafy.

The developers may have promised such luxuries when they were granted outline planning consent but, oh dear, when push comes to bulldozer, it’s “just not viable”.

The councillors on the planning committees shrug: at least they have met their Government-set housing targets.

Each time one of these new estates goes up, there are scores of angry, unhappy people who have lost their views and their access to the countryside. Multiply that across the country, and it’s no wonder town planners have such a bad name.

Is anyone happy? The suddenly rich former landowner almost certainly, as he flies his shiny new helicopter to his shiny new villa in Bermuda.

In a convincing speech to an audience at Plymouth University last Thursday, Lord Taylor called for a new planning strategy in which rural councils are given the power to acquire farm land to build new Garden Villages of 1,500-5,000 homes, separate from existing communities.

Legislation to allow councils to pay above market rates for agricultural land but below that for development land would kill two birds with one stone. The farmer will be handsomely compensated, and the resulting profit will be ploughed back into the new community for schools, shops and other facilities.

But you’ll be concreting over our green and pleasant land! I hear you cry.

Not so, says Lord T. Today, just nine per cent of England is developed. Another million homes in Garden Villages would barely take that figure to 9.5 per cent.

Unlike the present system, which seems designed to create unhappiness, “a new Bodmin, off the A30 and over the hill, would be seen by hardly anyone,” he says. Being smallish, it won’t require new dual carriageways. And being at least partly self-contained, it can become a real community.

What’s not to like?”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Keith-Rossiter-Town-planning-gives-worst-worlds/story-28906598-detail/story.html