Daily Archives: 28 Mar 2016

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

What is our LEP doing about preparing Plan B in case of Brexit?

It is possible they are doing nothing. We are not allowed to know – it is secret. Here is what some small and medium-sized companies are already doing:

“Above a factory floor of machines carving metal to within a millionth of a metre, Stephen Cheetham is preparing his company for the unknown: a British exit from the European Union.

Since the government announced a referendum on Britain’s future in Europe, Cheetham has deferred investment decisions, put off expensive hiring and even bought equipment with his own money to avoid straining the balance sheet. …

… smaller companies in the manufacturing heartlands, crucial to the economy and often inextricably linked to continental Europe, are formulating contingency plans that illustrate the risks facing businesses across the country and the steps being taken to mitigate them.

At the start of 2015, almost half of Britain’s private-sector turnover came from firms that employed fewer than 249 people, according to the Department for Business.

For Cheetham his “disaster plan” involves jettisoning nearly half of his 30 employees if a Brexit compounds the drag from an already slowing global economy at his firm in the English rural town of Hereford.

Across the nearby Welsh border, Gareth Jenkins, who runs a toolmaking firm, has identified which major customers in Europe are likely to abandon him should they have to accept higher costs or slower delivery times that might come from new border controls with EU countries if Britain leaves the bloc.

He has calculated the financial impact and says in a worst-case scenario he could lose 25 percent of his turnover. He plans to tell his 91 employees in the next couple of weeks that a vote to leave could force him to lay off a quarter of staff. …

… Adam Shuter, head of haulier Exact Logistics, is investigating whether he should set up a German office, which he thinks could cost less than the additional taxes and paperwork of serving EU customers from outside the bloc.

“For a small business, it’s quite a bit of investment,” he said. “It just adds a layer of administration.”

He is also gauging the extra customs costs his British customers might incur outside the EU, using non-members Norway and Switzerland as guides, and looking at how much it would cost to set up expensive software to handle border clearances.

… British importers also fear they will have to pay VAT sales tax when they take delivery of goods from the EU – rather than at the point of sale – making cashflow harder to manage.”

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/Reuters/UKTopNews/~3/-5hiZnmQ1Wo/story01.htm

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Rural communities, Sustainability, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Gateshead asks sensible questions before committing to devolution

“Town hall leaders in the North East are making a series of demands on George Osborne on a number of key issues as talks to devolve powers to the region continue after councillors in Gateshead failed to endorse the latest deal.

An agreement would see the North East handed a raft of new powers and an extra £30m in regional funding in return for establishing an elected mayor as part of the Chancellor’s Northern Powerhouse agenda.

But Gateshead Council’s cabinet voted last week to reject the proposals, sparking doubts about whether the deal could be made.

The region’s six remaining local authorities are now looking to press ahead, but are calling for “clarification and commitment” from the Government on a number of “outstanding issues” from the Government before deciding whether to give their seal of approval to the multi-billion pound covenant.

The North East Combined Authority has set out a list of these issues ahead of further talks with the Government and has delayed making a final decision until May.

Newcastle Council’s leader Nick Forbes, whose council has endorsed the deal, said at a meeting of the authority’s leadership board: “None of us would have had this deal as a starting point, but it is important that we take this first step.”

Helen Golightly, North East Local Enterprise Partnership’s chief operating officer, said the meeting “underlined the region’s continued support for devolution”.

She said: “There are still matters where the local authorities feel they need more clarification from Government. The North East LEP remains fully supportive of the devolution process.”

She added: “Devolving powers will give us more opportunity to help drive the economic growth our region needs to contribute our full worth to the UK economy.”

Outstanding issues include a lack of certainty over £30m a year funding over 30 years and the need to “rural proof” investment to ensure rural areas are not left behind. The councils are also awaiting confirmation on how the Government plans to devolve funding for sustainable transport. Leaders also want further commitments to ensure the North East is not put at a financial disadvantage in relation to Scotland.

Jeremy Middleton, North East LEP board member and a mayoral candidate for the region, said the North East Combined Authority’s politicians were “holding the region back”.

He said: “This delay means there is a very real risk that the North East will be left behind again.”

A Government spokesman said: “The Government is making huge progress towards rebalancing Britain’s economy and empowering local areas through the devolution of powers and resources away from Whitehall.

“This is a bottom up process and if any local authority in the end decides it no longer wants to be part of it, then we will continue to work with those local partners who do, in order to make this historic opportunity in for the North East a reality.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/devolution-northern-powerhouse-gateshead-knocks-back-george-osborne-over-devolution-deal-for-north-a6957206.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Education (local)

An allegedly corrupt academy school doesn’t fail – it is “re-brokered”

“An academy chain responsible for five secondary schools that was praised by David Cameron and Michael Gove is to be stripped of all its schools, according to sources close to the Department for Education (DfE).

The Perry Beeches academy trust is to have its five academies and free schools in Birmingham handed over to a new academy trust following a critical financial investigation.

A report by the Education Funding Agency (EFA), published before Easter, showed financial shortcomings at Perry Beeches, including third-party payments made to the chief executive, Liam Nolan, on top of his £120,000 salary as executive headteacher. The EFA’s call for urgent action triggered an official notice from the DfE, which detailed “serious concerns about financial management, control and governance” at the trust.

The five Perry Beeches schools are expected be “rebrokered” by the DfE and pass to a new chain, the West Midlands academies trust, which is headed by David Kershaw, a Labour cabinet member of Coventry council.

A Whitehall source said: “This shows the academy system is working, with the EFA identifying issues and regional schools commissioners intervening and rebrokering effectively, as part of a robust system of oversight.”

Perry Beeches declined to respond to requests for comment through its PR agency. However, the agency forwarded a comment from Nolan, who said: “I do not know who is brokering this deal. This would be done by the directors of the academy trust. I am an employee and won’t be involved in that brokering.”

For Nolan, the financial unravelling of the trust may overshadow his record as a successful headteacher. From 2007, he transformed the first Perry Beeches academy in inner-city Birmingham and won outstanding judgments from Ofsted.

Nolan’s recipe of hard work and improved results was as popular with ministers as with parents. “Parents want a structured, organised, disciplined education for their children. It is happening in the very best independent and the very best grammar schools. Why shouldn’t it be open to children from normal comprehensive schools?” Nolan said in a DfE publicity video.

Nolan embraced the free school reforms introduced by the Conservatives, although he is personally a vocal Labour supporter. Gove returned the compliment, telling the 2012 Conservative party conference: “The two best schools in Birmingham are Perry Beeches I and Perry Beeches II.”

The demise of Perry Beeches is badly timed for the government as it tries to win public support for a huge expansion of academy trust-run school networks. An education white paper launched after the budget proposed taking all 17,000 schools from local authority control and turning them into academies.

The investigation by the EFA, the DfE arm responsible for financial oversight of academies, took six months after it first received evidence from a whistleblower in September last year.

Lucy Powell, the shadow education secretary, said the catalogue of events “should ring alarm bells” over the government’s regulation of multi-academy trusts. “This decision raises serious questions about accountability and financial management of academy chains and ministers’ ability to police the system they have created,” Powell said.

“Parents and local communities will be deeply worried that this government has failed to put in place the appropriate checks over academy chain funding decisions, prioritising converting schools into academies over school standards and the protection of public money.”

The DfE would not publicly discuss the move, though a spokesperson said: “We are currently working with Perry Beeches academy trust to ensure it addresses concerns raised and this remains our priority.”

The prime minister opened one of Perry Beeches’ new free schools in 2013, when he praised the “brilliant team” at the trust. In 2012 Nolan addressed the Conservative party conference and appeared on stage with Gove, then the education secretary, who described Nolan as “wonderful”.

Last year, Gove’s successor Nicky Morgan told school leaders that Perry Beeches was evidence that by “working together through multi-academy trusts, schools can achieve truly extraordinary outcomes”.

The EFA investigation of Perry Beeches uncovered irregularities including nearly £1.3m in payments without contracts to a third-party supplier, Nexus. That company also subcontracted to a company named Liam Nolan Ltd, paying Nolan a second salary for his role as chief executive and accounting officer of the trust.

Evidence confirms that the accounting officer of Perry Beeches multi-academy trust is being paid for his services as the chief executive officer (CEO) through Nexus and then Liam Nolan Ltd, in addition to his salary as executive headteacher,” the EFA report said.

The report concluded that “the academy paid Nexus £72,000 including VAT in 2013-14 and £88,800 plus VAT in 2014-15 for the CEO role”, in contravention of academies’ financial rules and Treasury guidelines.

A separate report by the EFA found that eligibility for more than £2.5m worth of free school meal (FSM) funding could not be checked because the relevant records to 2015 were deleted by the trust. “The trust has breached the academies financial handbook by failing to retain any form of FSM eligibility evidence for a period of six years,” the EFA concluded.

After the EFA reports were published last week, Nolan told the TES that he was stepping down as the trust’s chief executive and would take a pay cut as executive head.

http://gu.com/p/4hqe9

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Nuclear energy: small is good, Hinkley C … so yesterday!

“Nuclear reactors may be about to shrink before our eyes.

After decades of building giant reactors in domes big enough to swallow a cathedral, nuclear engineers are thinking small.

They believe part of the solution to the energy crisis will come from factory-built mini-reactors, just 23m (75ft) long, delivered to the site on the back of a lorry.

Fans of small modular reactors (SMRs) say they will avoid the problems of delay and cost over-run that has beset traditional reactors.
Most importantly, they say, “mini-nukes” as small as a tenth the size of a conventional reactor would be much easier to finance.

Financial concerns

Finance has become the biggest obstacle to new nuclear plants.
The UK is locked in nuclear paralysis because EDF hasn’t yet confirmed the funding for the planned Hinkley C nuclear power plant – despite the backing of two of the world’s richest governments, France and China.

Footloose investors scanning the world for money-making opportunities tend to turn away when they see a nuclear reactor taking years to build, fraught with technical and political risk.

Solar and wind energy offer much more predictable returns in a fraction of the pay-back time.

But SMR fans say mini-nukes as small as 50 megawatts (MW) could change that. They suggest it’s as simple as placing your order and waiting for a reactor to turn up. Then plug and play – and wait to get your money back.

If you want large-scale power, just line up a dozen SMRs side by side. It’s a bit more complicated than that, of course, but potential offered by this technology is exciting governments worldwide.

In his most recent Budget, the Chancellor George Osborne announced a competition for the design of small modular reactors for use in the UK.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35863846

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Devolution, EDDC, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Transparency

Cabinet Agenda – 5.30 p.m. Knowle, 6 April 2016 – a meaty mix of relocation and devolution WITH NO MEANINGFUL COSTINGS WHATSOEVER

144 pages

Minutes take up the first 31 pages

Relocation – pages 32-49
“This update is to advise on progress of the relocation plans and seek Cabinet agreement to further key actions”.
Appendix 1 – Floor plans Honiton HQ and Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment
Appendix 2 – Pegasus Life plan for Knowle Site buildings footprint
Appendix 3 – Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey results summary

RECOMENDATIONS;
“Knowle Site:
1. Note that Pegasus Life Ltd following public consultation exercises will be submitting its application for development of the Knowle site . The projected likely date of consideration of the application is July 2016
2.Note that Sidmouth Town Council has responded positively to the Deputy Chief Executive ‘s formal proposal to transfer the remaining Knowle Park to Town Council ownership together with a commuted sum and negotiations continue Honiton Heathpark
3. Note that preparations are underway by the design team to submit a planning application for new build Council offices at
Heathpark with a view to Planning Committee consideration in September 2016
4. Note that the new HQ design is moving from concept to detailed design of space allocations for desks, meeting spaces, storage, reception area, Chamber, member area, services and external works
5. Note that construction is planned to commence in November 2016 for a period of up to 12 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works with occupation of the new HQ targeted for February 2018
6. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive has again met with businesses and staff at the East Devon Business Centre to discuss and advise on project progress Exmouth Town Hall
7. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive and design team have met with tenants of Exmouth Town Hall to discuss their needs,
concerns and expectations regarding the refurbishment of the building and its impact on their operations including any disruption or temporary displacement
8. Note that the Council has issued Section 25 notices to end the tenancies of Town Hall tenants to be followed by negotiation of
new tenancies
9. Note that refurbishment is planned to commence in Autumn 2016 and last between 8 – 10 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works.

Other
10. That Cabinet approve the use of £47,040 of transformation funds for the additional scope required within the Electronic
Document Management System.
11. Note that the Council has appointed Interserve to provide the Pre Construction Advisory role through a two stage
competitive tender process based upon the CFSW Framework. As part of the second stage tender process, Interserve will be
asked to provide their firm fixed price tender for the Project Works later this Year. If in the event the received tender is not
acceptable a further tendering process will be carried out.
12. Note that there continues to be ongoing detailed engagement with staff and tenants regarding space allocation, twin site
facilities, team locations, internal design, fit out and operational requirements
13. Note that Members have received a presentation on new offices design and layout. Further presentations and discussion will be arranged as the project moves forward
14. Agree SMT’s decision to locate Housing Services in the main as well as availability of other front facing provision (Benefits,
Environmental Health, Planning) on the basis of the findings of the Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey with
residents (attached at Appendix 3)
15. Note the successful recruitment of a Relocation Facilities Manager post to prepare and oversee the physical relocation of staff and resources”
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF BUMPH ABOUT WHAT AN EXCELLENT IDEA RELOCATION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …


Devolution – pages 50 – 92

Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf

“To update members on progress of the Devolution Prospectus”
Appendix 1 – Governance Workshop Notes
Appendix 2 – Governance Workshop slides
Appendix 3 – Briefing key messages
Appendix 4 – HoSW Prospectus for Productivity presentation
Appendix 5 – HoSW Productivity Plan Workshop Meeting notes
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF SLIDES ALL SHOWING WHAT A WONDERFUL THING DEVOLUTION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …
AND ENDING WITH THIS WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF ALMOST TOTALLY MEANINGLESS LEP JARGON:

“Conclusions and next steps
The key step was felt to be the development of a vision and criteria to drive the development of the productivity plan and the
work streams within the devolution prospectus. Building on the 6 golden opportunities exploring
a) what will move us forward rapidly
b) what will stop us moving backwards

Need this vision to be developed and agreed by our Leaders before we do too much more work within the theme areas.
Recognise that we need to keep the pace.

Twin track process:
The Productivity Plan being the longer term vision of transformation irrespective of what devolution deal we obtain. It will be an overarching plan that will drive ambition for the area.

Devolution – will work rapidly with government to agree a Heads of Terms similar to the East Anglia devolution
model and push for an early deal.

We could commission our universities to undertake some research to explore the options for transformational change in our area to inform the development.

Action:
The PMO will be asked to develop a Next Steps document for comment on the development of the vision, criteria, and the framework and resources required to deliver a shared plan.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Devolution: the next 5 years – councillors should be ashamed of themselves for signing us up with no consultation

House of Commons
Communities and Local Government Committee
Devolution: the next five years and beyond. First Report of Session 2015–16 25 Jan 2016

Extracts

Devolution Objectives (Conclusion para 21)

“As set out above, our witnesses gave us many important and ambitious reasons for pursuing devolution, particularly so for health devolution. However, with the exception of increasing economic growth, we are not certain whether these are intended to be the measurable objectives of devolution and are not convinced that the Government itself is any clearer. We are also not satisfied that the Government has considered and identified how to measure the success of a devolution deal once in place.”

The Approach to Devolution (from para 24 and 25)

“….the current approach to devolution in England is overtly one of deal-making, which can be characterised as negotiations behind closed doors between central government and representatives of local authorities….
……Indeed, one of the consequences of deal-making is that devolution does not happen in a uniform manner; deals have so far been agreed with seven city regions and with Cornwall. Professor Pike described it as “very ad hoc” and “piecemeal”…..”

On Public Engagement (from para 51 and 52)

“We have been struck by the lack of discussion and consultation with the public in areas which have proposed, negotiated and agreed devolution deals.

At the question and answer session we held with residents during our visit to Greater Manchester, the vast majority of contributions, often made in angry tones, arose from the perceived lack of efforts by the combined authority to engage the public about the deal relating to their local area.

While many valid points were made, we note that attendees, having elected to attend the session, were not necessarily representative of all Greater Manchester residents who are likely to be less aware of devolution.

We were told that there had been a “complete, utter and total lack of democratic engagement”, “insufficient information” and that most people did not understand what Devo Manc was all about.

When we raised this with our Greater Manchester witnesses, Cllr Kieran Quinn, the Leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, said he fully accepted there could have been more transparency. Cllr Sue Jeffrey, the Leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, told us that Tees Valley had not consulted the public before signing up to a deal and Cllr Alan Rhodes, Leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, said they were talking about the deal in the media and would hold a public consultation once it was agreed.
…..Cllr Quinn reasoned that, as the deal was bringing new powers to local people, not taking them away, limited public engagement could be excused……….

Conclusion (para 56)

“We think it is too late to engage the public only once a deal has been agreed. While it is reasonable that the actual negotiations are not open to the public, steps should be taken to inject more openness into the process by publishing on the relevant authorities’ websites:

• Devolution proposals and the Government’s counter-offers, within a reasonable time of them being made;
• An outline of what is being negotiated; and
• Drafts of the deal, and the text of the final deal.

The Government should also publish the criteria it uses to assess and agree proposals so local areas can refer to these when drawing up their devolution bid. A similar level of transparency should continue to be maintained once the deal has been agreed.”

Scrutiny (Conclusion para 77)

“As the DCLG says, the overview and scrutiny requirements in the Bill are an initial framework to be used as a basis for more robust provisions, which we believe have a role in fostering public confidence in the new arrangements, as well as balancing vested interests. These should be developed to suit the characteristics of the local areas as a result of deliberate efforts to hold active discussions at local level, with residents involved in designing new and more open methods of scrutiny.

Local areas need to give active consideration to how the mayor will work with the council leaders and how s/he will be held to account. Although the elected mayor is intended to be a ‘first among equals’, s/he may soon establish, or already have, a profile and position which makes this balance difficult to achieve.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

Rules – what rules?

From a story in today’s Daily Telegraph about David Cameron having hissy fits about Brexit Cabinet ministers:

“Earlier this year the Prime Minister lifted “collective responsibility” rules for members of the Government, meaning that they are able to campaign on both sides of the EU argument.”

https://t.co/1vq1Zbipxx

Isn’t it interesting that, when it is expedient, rules cannot only be bent but ignored.

How often have we heard, at EDDC, that something cannot be done (particularly public speaking) because it is “against the rules” or “against standing orders”. Yet one of the biggest rules (Cabinet collective responsibility) can simply be “suspended” at any time.