It isn’t just Knowle where civil servants refuse to provide taxpayers information – MPs suffer too!

” The chairs of two parliamentary select committees have accused the top civil servant at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) of misleading MPs over the closure its biggest office outside London.

Iain Wright, chair of the business committee, and Meg Hillier, chair of the public accounts committee, have written to Martin Donnelly, the BIS permanent secretary, calling on him to release information on the department’s estimate of the costs of the closure of its St Paul’s Place office in Sheffield, which employs around 240 people. …

… this week the department was forced to admit that employing people in its Sheffield office costs less than a third of what it costs in London.

In an answer to a written question from the MP for Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield, the universities and science minister, Jo Johnson, said the annual cost of rent, rates and maintenance for an employee at the office in Sheffield was £3,190, compared with £9,750 at the headquarters on Victoria Street in London. …

… In the letter, the two committee chairs said the information relating to the reorganisation of the department that the permanent secretary had provided was “wholly unsatisfactory” and his answers in oral evidence to their committees had been “obfuscatory, if not misleading”.

“Your refusal to disclose the information we have sought is unhelpful, unjustified and is impeding our ability to fulfil our scrutiny functions,” they said.

“[We] are asking for precise information about the work done to estimate the costs of different scenarios in relation to the closure of the Sheffield office and transfer of posts to London. Specifically, could you please provide us with a copy of the document entitled BIS 2020 Finance and Headcount Outline, and any other document which has informed decisions relating to the Sheffield office.”

The letter asked that the information be provided before Donnelly appears before the public accounts committee on 27 April. …

… “Taxpayers deserve better from those working on their behalf. We expect the permanent secretary to respond swiftly and with clarity on the points of concern raised by our committees, which includes releasing the information we have requested. Only then can the decision to close the BIS Sheffield office be properly scrutinised.”

Wright, the business, innovation and skills committee chair, said: “The permanent secretary is accountable for the use of public funds and needs to demonstrate the financial rationale and evidence-based business case for the decision to cut jobs in Sheffield and centralise policymaking in London. The permanent secretary has a responsibility to enable us to scrutinise the running of his department and disclose this information.” …

… Donnelly stressed that the department had not yet reached final decisions about the number of roles in the Sheffield office that would be made redundant and the number that would be moved to London. He said there had, therefore, been no formal cost-benefit analysis of the decision to close the Sheffield office.”

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

Hinkley C: “Power for 60 years” … in your dreams!

Our Energy Minister, Amber Rudd, has written a public letter (i.e. press release) that states that one benefit of Hinkley C is that ” … it will power homes for 60 years … and we are only paying for 35″.

Oh, Amber, Amber, your innocence pains Owl!

In year 36 (if we ever get there) EDF and Chinese investors will almost certainly suddenly find massive unanticipated and unplanned-for major difficulties that will, sadly, mean that Hinkley C must close.

That’s politics, Amber.

Knowle: EDDC helping Pegasus to get its ducks in a row

“An EDDC spokeswoman said: “We have received an application from Pegasus, but we will require some additional information before we can validate it. Once we have everything that we need, the application will be advertised, posted on our website and the community consulted in the usual way.”

The developer said ‘major changes’ had been made to its original vision ahead of the plans being submitted. Under the plans, the site’s 19th century former hotel and 1970s offices will be demolished to make way for dwellings for over-60s. The Caretaker’s Cottage will remain. Much of the parkland will remain in public ownership. A restaurant and gym facilities also feature in proposals.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/delay_to_plan_for_115_homes_gym_and_restaurant_at_knowle_sidmouth_1_4503444

Exmouth: 95% of those who voted want more consultation on seafront plans

Which means we return to the question: who does a council represent – its developers or its voters? What should a council’s over-arching aim be: economic growth at all costs or social and environmental representation?

Back to the drawing board, EDDC. Or ignore your voters?

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exmouth-Seafront-94-cent-vote-consultation/story-29151530-detail/story.html

Community Hospitals: the more you raise to improve them, the more rent the NHS will charge …

Sidmouth GPs are outraged about what they call the Catch 22 on community hospitals: the more the community has raised to improve the facilities, the more the commercial rent will be; so the less affordable it will be for health providers; so the owner (ie Jeremy Hunt) will be required by law to close it down and sell it off as real estate.

Meanwhile Mr Swire is delightfully rattled. Until he started to protest too much most people did not really care where his family’s £250 million income last year came from or how much tax was paid on it. Claire [Wright] is right… this one will run and run.


Robert Crick

Whose standards?

In the list of complaints received about councillors published recently by the Standards Committee is this one:

Town Councillor

Complaint regarding not declaring a personal interest
Passed to MO for assessment

The subject member is a member of Axminster Lodge of Honour & Virtue and participated in and voted upon an approved payment for Axminster Freemasons.

Click to access 190416standardscttecombinedagenda.pdf

page 15

Fat cats getting fatter

“… A financial elite plunged the country into calamity and effectively got away with it unscathed, while workers suffered the longest period of reduced pay since the Victorian era. Meanwhile public services, social security and secure jobs were slashed. It has become increasingly clear – as the Panama Papers underscored – that a significant chunk of our economic elite simply do not like paying tax in this country.

The problem is that this injustice is met with resignation, rather than anger. While rage at the smaller misdemeanours of the poor – such as benefit fraud – seems easy to stir, destructive behaviour on this far greater scale is discussed like the weather. The rich pay themselves ludicrous sums of money, major corporations avoid tax, sometimes it rains …”

http://gu.com/p/4tg5d

GPs get cash injection

“NHS chiefs in England have announced a five-year plan to help GP surgeries “get back on their feet” and to improve access for patients.

The rescue package will see an extra £2.4bn a year ploughed into services by 2020 – a rise of 14% once inflation is taken into account.

It will pay for 5,000 more GPs and extra staff to boost practices.
It comes after warnings from the profession that the future of general practice was at real risk.

Rising patient demand coupled with a squeeze in funding has led to patients facing longer waits for appointments and increasing difficulties getting through to their local surgeries.

Both the British Medical Association and Royal College of GPs have been increasingly vocal about the pressures over the past year.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36087286

Yet another Conservative climb down- this time on rogue landlords and perrs vote for parish councils to oppose developers!

“Rogue letting agents will be hit by a tough new scheme to stop them running off with tenants’ cash after a Tory climbdown. Under-fire ministers added strict rules to their Housing Bill at the last minute to avoid an embarrassing House of Lords defeat. The ‘dog’s breakfast’ Tory Bill, which launches Starter Homes and extends the Right to Buy, has already suffered seven defeats and as many U-turns.

Now a new clause, drafted hours before a planned vote, will force private letting agents to put cash in Client Money Protection accounts. Until now agents could keep rent and deposits in their own accounts while passing it between landlords and tenants. But that left customers penniless if agents went bust or ran off criminally with the cash. …

… The rules were approved without opposition by the House of Lords.

Tory Housing Minister Baroness Williams said she was pleased to wave through the change after working with Labour and the Lib Dems. She added: “I listened very carefully to the points they’ve made.”

But meanwhile, the Housing Bill still suffered its seventh defeat tonight.

Peers voted 251-194 to let parish councils and neighbourhood forums appeal against developments which ride roughshod over their overall plans for the local area.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tough-new-laws-force-rogue-7797054

Another voice on the unreliability of party politics

“… Our electoral system reliably herds voters through the old party gates at general election time, regardless of where we graze mid-term. Traditional allegiances have proved resilient enough in the past that the safe bet is on their endurance. We probably won’t get a grand political realignment out of this referendum, but we might learn how much we need one.”

http://gu.com/p/4tf69

“Academy plans pose ‘significant risk’ to government finance” says National Audit Office

… “In a critical assessment, the Department for Education’s annual accounts have been rated as “adverse” by the National Audit Office, which said there was no clear view of academies’ spending. Adverse is the most negative opinion that an auditor can give.” …

http://gu.com/p/4tfn6

Claire Wright continues to fight for tax transparency

“LAST week the Echo revealed that out of four local MPs asked about their tax affairs, only one (Ben Bradshaw) answered the questions put. And one (East Devon’s MP, Hugo Swire) wrote an extraordinary furious letter to the paper in response.

While steadfastly refusing to address the queries put to him, Mr Swire embarked on a furious tirade against those of us he sees as intruding into personal issues.

Tax avoidance by big business has been a hobby horse of mine since I campaigned in the general election last year.

I find it shocking that there is one rule for super wealthy oligarchs and multi-nationals – which have the potential to make massive contributions to public services, and another for the rest of us. Last year, despite its monumental profits, Facebook paid just £4,000 corporation tax in this country!

Of course, such financial contributions to the treasury are especially vital at a time of austerity when public sector budgets are subjected to crippling and swingeing cuts.

Those with the least are always hit the hardest when this happens, as they rely more on public services, such as benefits, buses and care, than the wealthy, who can afford cars, private healthcare and have access to plenty of cash.

I organised a demonstration against aggressive tax avoidance outside the Sidmouth Conservative club, in February, where Mr Swire often holds his surgeries.

I also lodged a motion (which the Devon County Council Conservative leadership hopes they have kicked into the long grass) aimed at clamping down on tax avoidance by county council contractors.

The final debate on this will be on May 12 at full council.

Mr Swire dislikes that the prime minister and chancellor have published their tax returns, describing the move as a “difficult precedent.”

But Mr Swire, didn’t the prime minister publicly pillory Jimmy Carr for his tax avoidance activities?

And doesn’t Mr Osborne say how keen he is to get big business such as Facebook and Google to pay tax more equivalent to their income generated in the UK?

Mr Swire suggests that if MPs are to be asked about their tax affairs people in public life should also be scrutinised, including newspaper editors, BBC journalists and councillors.

This is perhaps an issue for discussion, however, as I see it there are two big distinctions between MPs and newspaper editors or BBC journalists. A journalist’s job is to report the news. But an MP’s job is to make decisions, pass laws and act for their constituents. They are in a position of trust and are paid very well for that position… with money from the British taxpayer.

The taxpayers who pay the East Devon MP’s generous salary deserve a bit of openness about his tax affairs, now the public interest has understandably rocketed in the ongoing scandal that is tax avoidance.”

No doubt we haven’t heard the last of this story.
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/letter-Claire-Wright-right-MPs-reveal-tax-returns/story-29143814-detail/story.html

Germany asks Belgium to turn off two nuclear reactors due to safety concerns

RLIN/BRUSSELS, April 20 (Reuters) – Germany has asked Belgium to take two nuclear reactors temporarily off the grid while questions about their safety are cleared up, an unusual diplomatic move that underscores German concerns about the plants.

Production at Belgium’s Tihange 1 nuclear reactor was halted for about 10 days in December because of a fire. Staffing has also been reduced to minimise the risk of unauthorised personnel gaining access to the plants after the November attacks on Paris and the March attacks on Brussels.
Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said on Wednesday that the decision to request another shut down of the Tihange 2 and Doel 3 reactors came after Germany’s independent Reactor Safety Commission advised that it could not confirm the reactors would be safe in the event of a fault.

Deputy Environment Minister Jochen Flasbarth telephoned the Belgian Interior Minister on Hendrick’s behalf on Tuesday to request a shutdown pending further safety investigations. Officials did not specify a timeframe.
The core tanks at the 33-year-old Doel 3 and Tihange 2 reactors were built by Dutch company Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij, which has also built reactors in other countries.

The two reactors, both with about a gigawatt of capacity, were closed in 2012 and again in 2014 after a brief restart, after inspections unveiled tiny cracks in their core tanks.

But the Belgian regulator authorised a restart in November 2015 after finding that the cracks were hydrogen flakes trapped in the walls of the reactor tank and had no unacceptable impact on the plant’s safety.
“I consider it right that the plants are temporarily taken offline at least until further investigations have been completed. I have asked the Belgian government to take this step,” Hendricks said in a statement.

She added the move would send a strong signal to reassure Germany and show that Belgium is taking the concerns of its neighbours seriously.
Belgian nuclear regulator FANC expressed surprise at the German minister’s remarks, saying in a statement that it had explained the issue with the reactors at a meeting of international experts.

“The nuclear reactors at Doel 3 and Tihange 2 fulfil the highest security standards,” the agency added.

Spurred by the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima plant in 2011, Germany pledged to abandon nuclear power generation completely by 2022 in favour of other power sources.

Hendricks’ comments are the highest profile criticism of the Belgian nuclear reactors so far in Germany, with the region around Aachen and the state of North Rhine-Westphalia having previously voiced concern.

Last week, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia said it would join a lawsuit brought by the Aachen city region against the Tihange 2 reactor, which is roughly 65 kilometres (about 40 miles) away from the west German city.
Germany has long been nervous about the safety of the reactors and a working group of officials met earlier this month to discuss the issue. Flasbarth told reporters talks with Belgian authorities had been constructive.
He added the decision to make the request had not been taken lightly and that Germany would give the Belgian government time to respond.”

(Reporting by Caroline Copley; Editing by Ruth Pitchford)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3549886/Germany-asks-Belgium-switch-nuclear-reactors.html

Devolution – not all it is cracked up to be

There are significant accountability implications arising from ‘devolution deals’ which central government and local areas will need to develop and clarify, the National Audit Office has said.

In a report, English devolution deals, the spending watchdog said these implications included “the details of how and when powers will be transferred to mayors and how they will be balanced against national parliamentary accountability”.

The NAO noted that the ten deals agreed so far involved increasingly complex administrative and governance configurations.

It stressed that, as devolution deals were new and experimental, “good management and accountability both depend on appropriate and proportionate measures to understand their impact”.

The watchdog said that to improve the chances of success, and provide local areas and the public with greater clarity over the progression of devolution deals, central government should clarify the core purposes of the arrangements as well as who will be responsible and accountable for devolved services and functions.

Central government should also ensure it identifies and takes account of risks to devolution deals that arise from ongoing challenges to the financial sustainability of local public services, the NAO added.
HM Treasury and the Cities and Local Growth Unit are responsible for managing the negotiation, agreement and implementation of devolution deals on behalf of central government as a whole.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: “Despite several iterations of deals, the Government’s approach to English devolution still has an air of charting undiscovered territory. It is in explorer mode, drawing the map as it goes along.

“Some of the opportunities and obstacles are becoming clearer, but we still do not have a clear view of the landscape or, crucially, an idea of the destination.”

Morse added: “Devolution deals provide important opportunities to reform public services. As with any experiment, some elements will work better than others. As we have said before, it is in the interests of both local areas and the government to know which programmes have the biggest impact for the money invested. Localism is not a reason for failure to learn from experiences or to spread best practice.”

Responding to the NAO report, a Local Government Association spokesman said: “Councils are working hard on implementing agreed deals and are working with government to finalise those deals which are still to be signed.

“It is imperative that the momentum is maintained to secure deals, especially in non-metropolitan areas whose economic potential is just as significant as that of big cities.”

“In terms of accountability, devolution has the potential to improve the democratic process by allowing decisions to be made closer to local people to best meet their needs. But councils should be free to put in place the appropriate model of governance for their communities and not have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model imposed on them where significant new responsibilities are devolved.”

The LGA spokesman added: “The report rightly recognises the possible complications arising from differing geographies for service delivery and councils, particularly for the recently announced sustainability and transformation plans. Councils and their partners will continue to take a pragmatic approach to designing and delivering services that best meet the needs of their communities.

“We support the study’s findings that devolution needs to be accompanied by fair and sustainable funding by Whitehall to manage risk and ensure devolved areas can run services successfully.

“This will help to ensure that the opportunities provided by devolution – delivering economic growth, building more homes, creating jobs and a skilled workforce, and joining up health and care services – will be actively embraced by both local and central government.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26690%3Aspending-watchdog-warns-on-devolution-deals-and-accountability&catid=59&Itemid=27

Publicans and ex-publicans enjoy a jolly good night out …

image

Colin Brown, East Devon District Councillor for Dunkeswell, EDDC Development Management Committee and Licensing Enforcement Committee, of the Monkton Court Hotel, Honiton; director of Bell Vue Developments

Paul Diviani, Leader EDDC, Devon County Councillor and Local Enterprise Partnership board member and formerly of the Stockland Arms Hotel, Stockland

Jenny Wheatley-Brown, also of the Monkton Court Hotel, Honiton and Conservative candidate for district council seat (lost) at Seaton at the last election and also director of Bell Vue Developments

and

John O’Leary, EDDC Councillor, Licensing Enforcement Committee, with special responsibility for the Thelma Hulbert Gallery, Honiton and Town Councillor for Honiton St Pauls, also formerly of the Stockland Arms Hotel, Stockland

at The Deer Park Country House Hotel for the unveiling of it’s orangery.

Photographer: Terry Ife (Midweek Herald)

Who chose Local enterprise partnership boundaries?

Owl has today alone read three articles about “Devon and Cornwall” but reads none at all (except when discussing devolution) “Devon and Somerset”.

Given the focus of our LEP on Hinkley C, would it not have been a better fit for one LEP to represent Devon and Cornwall and for Somerset to link northwards towards Bristol and Gloucestershire?

This now means that Cornwall goes it alone as a single parent and Devon is forced into an arranged marriage with Somerset!

There are a massive number of synergies between Devon and Cornwall but none between Devon and Somerset except the M5 and A303.

Who drew the lines and got us underwriting Hinkley C and its infrastructure with Somerset instead of concentrating on urban regeneration, tourism, rural infrastructure and environmental stewardship with Cornwall?

“Britain’s two-party political system isn’t working” – more Independents needed says former Conservative spin master

“Voters are disillusioned with a malfunctioning democracy. The system must change so independent candidates have a fair chance of election:

It doesn’t have to be this way. It’s clear that people are looking for a new kind of politics that goes beyond traditional party lines: a politics first and foremost of engagement and transparency, not reducible to the old left-right divide. …

… Change is long overdue. In the 1950s, politics was simpler. Workers voted Labour, the middle class and the wealthy voted Conservative. About 90% of votes went to one of these two parties. But by 2015, the combined total had dropped to just over two-thirds. Voters today are searching for new options beyond the two-party model. …

… In today’s age of nearly unlimited information, our world views are nuanced and sophisticated, but our creaking democratic processes struggle to reflect this. Where do you go if you are a Conservative on the economy, a Green on the environment, Labour on social justice, Liberal Democrat on human rights? That is not an unusual combination. But Westminster politics still pushes a false, binary simplicity. …

… Even if an independent candidate does get on the ballot, it’s next to impossible for voters to discover that there might be someone outside the two-party system who genuinely matches their views. …

… In today’s age of nearly unlimited information, our world views are nuanced and sophisticated, but our creaking democratic processes struggle to reflect this. Where do you go if you are a Conservative on the economy, a Green on the environment, Labour on social justice, Liberal Democrat on human rights? That is not an unusual combination. But Westminster politics still pushes a false, binary simplicity.

This is where the corruption comes in, because the principal barrier to a more open and diverse politics in the UK is money. Thankfully, it plays a far lesser role in Britain than America – where money from fundraising Super Pacs dominates campaigning. But even here, you need cash to stand for office, to run a campaign, to get elected. Who can afford to do that? Only the centralised party organisations. And where do they get their money? The same old sectoral interests – the financial industry on the right and the unions on left. …

… Even if an independent candidate does get on the ballot, it’s next to impossible for voters to discover that there might be someone outside the two-party system who genuinely matches their views. …

… If we’re ever going to see the kind of modern, responsive and open-minded politics that people are crying out for, we have to break the grip of the party machines and get more independent, and independent-minded, candidates elected to office, at every level of government. But such candidates face enormous obstacles. Only parties have the muscle to win most elections, and party insiders control candidate selections tightly.

The barriers to political participation must be removed and the stranglehold of the big party machines broken, so that the power can be taken out of the hands of the insiders, the moneyed interests and the Westminster power brokers – and put where it belongs: in the hands of the people.

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

HMRC to stop collecting data on richest one per cent

“Institute for Fiscal Studies warns about accumulation of wealth by top 1% and says HMRC proposals to stop collecting data would create misleading picture:

Proposals by the UK government to stop collecting information showing how the wealthy pass on their assets from one generation to another have been condemned by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a leading tax and spending thinktank.

The IFS said Britain was in danger of allowing a misleading picture to emerge of its richest families – the top 1% whose wealth is at least £1.4m including the value of their home – that underestimates their wealth.

The warning follows a debate about the assets and influence of Britain’s top 1% of wealthy households following the leak of the Panama Papers, which revealed the offshore holdings of many rich individuals.

The IFS said calculations that failed to include the often complex web of trusts and jointly owned properties that the richest families use to avoid capital gains and inheritance tax would depress the overall measure of wealth.

It said that in 2005 the under-recording and differences in valuation of inherited estates increased the total from £3.4tn to £4tn.

The inclusion of family trusts, jointly owned properties and small properties, which the IFS said were excluded from the standard published data, raised the total to £5tn – 46% higher than the total initially identified by officials.

A special issue of the IFS journal Fiscal Studies argues that the accumulation of wealth by the top 1% has meant the “younger generations are on course to have less wealth at each point in life than earlier generations”.

Adding to a welter of analysis that points to wealth – rather than incomes – providing the biggest split in society, it said inheritances will do little to even out the spread of wealth, leaving younger people from poorer families unable to acquire assets already in the hands of the top 1%.

The IFS said the acquisition of expensive houses, generous occupational pensions and trust funds in offshore havens have helped to cement the wealth of the top 1% for their children and grandchildren.

In response to moves by HMRC to stop gathering wealth data on the top 1%, the report said: “Wealth is a key determinant of wellbeing. It matters to households whether they have enough savings to see themselves through retirement and it matters for how they would respond to economic shocks and to fiscal and monetary policy. So understanding the distribution of wealth matters.

“So it is concerning that HMRC have consulted on discontinuing their publication of statistics on top shares of wealth, which are derived from data on bequests. These statistics have for decades given us the only, albeit imperfect, window into the wealth of the very richest,” they said.

A spokesman for HMRC said: “We will continue to publish statistics on wealth, but we have asked for views on whether HMRC should continue to produce wealth statistics in the way we currently do as the data we use is derived from inheritance tax information. Since 2006 the ONS have issued regular wealth surveys, but based on household assets. We want to streamline this.”

The report’s authors said ONS wealth surveys relied on feedback from households over a long period of time and many respondents had given up filling in survey forms by the time they retired. It also missed out on probate data that documents household wealth when a respondent is deceased.

“We have been learning a lot about the wealth distribution in recent years, especially following the introduction of the Wealth and Assets Survey. But this survey cannot tell us much about the top 1% who hold around 20% of household wealth,” they said.”

http://gu.com/p/4tem2

Government scraps proposed changes to trade union funding – Tory peers not prepared to back the change

It seems there are now THREE Conservative parties: Bremain, Brexit and Bolshie Lords!

U-turn on plan to abolish ‘check-off’ system follows threatened rebellion in Lords and will be seen as major victory for unions:

The government is to drop a controversial proposal to change trade union funding arrangements after a threatened rebellion in the House of Lords.

Under plans included in the trade union bill all civil servants and staff in the wider public sector who belong to a union would have had to switch to direct debits or make other arrangements to pay their fees.

But a cabinet office minister admitted the government had failed to convince Tory peers to vote for the proposal and said it would be dropped from the bill.

The decision will be seen as a major victory for public sector unions which had claimed the proposal was a vindictive attack on their finances.

Tories forced to rethink trade union crackdown after Lords defeat
Critics had warned that a switch to direct debit payments would see members leave trade unions and no longer be able to access services they provided such as help with cheap loans, debt advice and legal aid.

In the report stage debate in the Lords,the cabinet office minister Lord Bridges acknowledged many Tory peers opposed the measure.

“I fear that my trying to convince you of our case may simply add grist to the mill of those who see this measure as a means of undermining trade unions themselves. This is certainly not and never has been the government’s intention,” he said. ….”

http://gu.com/p/4tf3q