https://www.facebook.com/raygee1944/
Remaining active for next snap election if (hopefully) Claire chooses to run again.
Monthly Archives: June 2017
“Be prepared to defend hospital closures in court”
“NHS leaders looking to deliver change and transformation in their local health economy should be prepared to defend their plans in court, rather than pretending that the likelihood of legal action will never happen, Rob Webster, CEO at South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS FT, has warned.
Chairing a session entitled ‘Saving Our Services – Why are local campaigns fighting to save the NHS from transformation?’, at last week’s NHS Confed17, Webster, who is also the lead for West Yorkshire and Harrogate STP, said that even if the health service does “harness the power of communities, you can bet we will still have a fight with some people about change”.
“One of the lessons I’ve learnt,” said the former NHS Confed boss, “is so long as you have engaged with people throughout the process and have done it in the right way, and so long as you have some clinical and public voices behind the changes you want to make, and as long as you’re prepared to go to court, if and when you have to, and win, then the change will happen.
“Somebody will refer you either to the secretary of state or to a judicial review. Get ready for it, and work through it, rather than pretending it’ll never happen or thinking that if it happens it is the worst thing in the world. Get yourself ready and it will work.”
During the session, Webster asked panel members what they thought should be the priorities with regards to the STP and change agenda for the new government.
David Lock QC, former MP and legal advisor to the NHS, said: “STPs were an object lesson in how not to do public engagement.”
The idea that the NHS needed space to have honest conversations with itself before going out to the public created a huge deficit in public trust, he argued.
“The process and the constraints put on those running the process, and not to be public about what they were doing, was enormously damaging,” stated Lock. “If the ministers want to keep the STP process going on, they are going to have to do an awful lot more emphasis on bringing the public with them. In the end, you cannot deliver public services in the face of public opposition.”
Cllr Robert Smart, an advisor to the ‘Save the DGH campaign’ in Eastbourne, stated that the health secretary needs to slow down the process of the STPs “and make them into a proper 10-year strategic view”.
“And if that takes a couple of years to produce, then it takes a couple of years to produce,” he told the audience of delegates. “It isn’t a question of suddenly saying, ‘in three months’ time, we’re going to convert 40% of acute spending into community spending’.”
The following day, Jeremy Hunt admitted that, given the result of the latest general election and with the negotiations around Brexit starting just a couple of days ago, it is now unlikely that the government will be able to introduce legislation for STPs in the next few years – if at all.
Imelda Redmond, national director of Healthwatch England, also called on Hunt to “reward, and encourage, engagement with the public” on the STPs.
“It is number one on people’s agenda of what they love about the country, and what they care about,” she said. “Why would you not harness that, and get the best care we can?”
And Jeremy Taylor, CEO of National Voices, stated that the government must give the health and care system the resources it needs, and give it the time it needs to make change.
“There may be legal requirements on consultation, but there are also psychological requirements: you need time to build trust and relationships,” he reflected. “If you are doing this at breakneck speed it is just not possible to do it.”
However, NHS Improvement boss Jim Mackey also told the conference that it is possible to get “90% of the way there” with accountable care systems and accountable care organisations within the current legislative framework – “but we need to prove it”.
NHS England’s Simon Stevens later confirmed the nine areas that will officially form part of the first wave of ACSs.
Webster concluded by agreeing that time and resources are really important. “It sounds like you need to plan in the medium term and understand the money you have to do that. You could call it a sustainability and transformation partnership trying to bring everyone together,” he joked.
“I think it’s good that we have an audience that thinks it is not right to be dishonest or patronising. What we need to do is be honest and get alongside people and harness the power of communities.”
Clinton Devon Estates and Budleigh Salterton “health hub” have an unhealthy relationship
Readers will recall an earlier Owl story of landowners Clinton Devon Estates grabbing a large part of the garden to Budleigh Hospital for development, considering the garden surplus to the requirements of the new “health hub” and much more suitable for their plans for two houses:
The Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan designated the Hospital garden as open green space. Neighbourhood plans can do this and this space ticks all the NPPF criteria boxes. The garden was considered an essential part of the psychological and therapeutic welfare of patients at the “health hub”.
Bell Cornwell for CDE only commented at the very last minute of the very last stage. They made a number of general comments to EDDC on 16 February 2017 suggesting a loosening of a number of policy phrases and a general comment that too many green spaces were being designated. No mention of Hospital Hubs or development of that site at all.
Click to access bell-cornwell-for-clinton-devon-estates.pdf
An application to build two houses on the hospital garden was then submitted and validated on 27 February 2017 It takes about two-thirds of the garden, rather than the half suggested.
The Plan Inspector asked the steering group for clarification of criteria used in each green space case on 18 April 2017. The steering group responded, and its response was published on the internet.
The Inspector in her report sided with CDE.
The Neighbourhood Plan steering group unanimously agreed to accept all the Inspector’s recommendations except the one where she agreed with Bell Cornwell who, of course, had no medical evidence to draw on!
The decision to accept or reject Inspector’s recommendations now lies with EDDC.
The question now is – how brave will EDDC councillors they be? There is a track record of rolling over for tummy tickles when CDE engages with them. CDE has fingers in many East Devon pies and held restrictive covenants on the seafront at Exmouth that it relinquished to allow EDDC to approve the Grenadier development and has everything from large landholdings to small ransom strips all over the district.
Strong administrative pressure will be to do the easy thing and to get the plan to Cabinet in July with no controversy and no action against CDE.
Local opinion is running strongly against “droit de seigneur” ( medeival feudal rights) in this case.
If it looks like everyone is rolling over without a fight, the plan may well be rejected at referendum.
Meet and question Police and Crime Commissioner Hernandez in Exmouth
“Police commissioner to attend meeting in Exmouth
The Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall is to answer questions from the public at an event in Exmouth.
Alison Hernandez will attend an open meeting which will take place at Exmouth Community College’s Telfer Centre on July 5, at 7pm.
Residents from Exmouth and the surrounding area will be able to question her on local issues.”
http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/police-commissioner-to-attend-meeting-in-exmouth-1-5075147
QUESTIONS SUCH AS:
Why do you need a deputy.
Why did you appoint a “good friend” to be your deputy?
Did you consult the Police and Crime Panel?
How many people did you interview for the post of deputy?
Do you really believe people with guns should supplement police?
and
What exactly are you FOR?
Oh, oh – no business rates devolution? Where’s the lost income coming from?
“Councils demand ‘clarity’ over funding after business rates devolution is dropped.
A steering group which spent the last 15 months consulting on how 100% business rates retention would work has been disbanded after the exclusion of local government finance legislation in this week’s Queen’s Speech.
Parliamentary time to consider the Local Government Finance Bill in the last Parliament ran out before Theresa May called this month’s General Election. However, the sector was stunned this week when the government made it clear that it would not revive the process for at least two years.
Room151 has seen a letter sent to members of the steering group from Anne Stuart, the newly-installed civil servant leading the business rates retention process.
It said: “I’m sorry this should be my first communication, but I am emailing because as you will have no doubt seen, the Queen’s Speech did not include a new Local Government Finance Bill and so it will not form part of the Parliamentary timetable for this session.”
In her letter, she thanked members of the steering group but said she would only be in touch “once we are in a position to resume working with you on the future of local government finance reform.”
However, she said that ministers remain committed to local government taking greater control of its income. “We are engaging ministers on the options for future reform without an immediate Bill…,” she said.
Ministers have reaffirmed their commitment to a thorough, evidence-based review and that work will continue with local government on that issue, Stuart said.
One steering group member told Room151: “This is more than a year’s work down the drain.
“If the government is planning to introduce any reform by executive order, it needs to make sure they take the sector with them.”
Lord Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association, said that the failure to move on with business rates devolution was “hugely concerning”.
He said: “While negotiating Brexit will be a huge challenge for the government, it cannot be a distraction from the challenges facing our public services. The day-to-day concerns of our communities go far beyond Brexit.
“Only with adequate funding and the right powers can local government help the government tackle the challenges facing our nation now and in the future.”
Jo Miller, Solace president and chief executive of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, said: “I am disappointed that key legislation—absolutely fundamental to ensuring the future sustainability of local government—has now been dropped.
“Local government urgently needs clarity around our future funding—at present we simply face a cliff edge from 2020. This must urgently be resolved.”
A DCLG statement said: “The government is committed to delivering the manifesto pledge to help local authorities to control more of the money they raise and will work closely with local government to agree the best way to achieve this.”
The steering group to guide the process of business rates devolution was created in March last year after George Osborne announced that primary legislation would be introduced to allow councils to keep 100% of growth in business rates—up from the current 50%.”
“Spending watchdog condemns ‘risky and expensive’ Hinkley Point”
Owl says: abd still our Local Enterprise Partnership sleepwalks into disaster with OUR money.
“Generations of British consumers have been locked into a “risky and expensive” project by the UK’s subsidy deal for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset, according to a damning report by the spending watchdog.
The National Audit Office said the contract sealed by ministers last September with EDF to construct the country’s first new atomic reactors in two decades would provide “uncertain strategic and economic benefits”.
Further, Brexit and Theresa May’s decision to quit an EU nuclear treaty could make the situation even worse, by triggering taxpayer compensation for EDF or a more generous deal for the French state-controlled company.
The watchdog condemned the past two governments for failing to look at alternative ways of financing the power station, such as taking a stake in the construction.
Observers labelled the report “deeply worrying”, a “strong reprimand” and a vindication of Hinkley Point C’s critics, who had argued it was too costly and advocated alternatives such as wind and solar power.
Under the terms of the 35-year contract, EDF is guaranteed a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour it generates, twice the wholesale price.
The subsidy is paid through energy bills, which the government estimates will translate to a £10 to £15 chunk of the average household bill by 2030.
At the heart of the spending watchdog’s criticism is the coalition government’s failure to look at any alternative financing model, such as taking an upfront stake in the £18bn project.
Instead, the Lib Dems and Tories decided all the construction risk for the plant must lay with EDF and its partner, Chinese state-owned CGN, to keep the project off the government’s books.
Taking a stake would have posed its own risks because of delays to projects with the same reactor design in Finland and France, the NAO admitted. “But our analysis suggests alternative approaches could have reduced the total project cost,” it added.
If the government had taken a 50% equity stake in the construction it could have almost halved the guarantee power price to as low as £48.50 per megawatt hour, according to the NAO.
The auditors were critical of ministers’ decision to negotiate bilaterally with EDF, rather than waiting for other new-build nuclear consortia to compete – an approach that the NAO noted had brought prices down on similar subsidy deals for windfarms.
The government’s case for the contract also weakened after the commercial terms of the deal were agreed by the then prime minister, David Cameron, in 2013, the watchdog said.
Delays to Hinkley and falling wholesale prices, caused by a two-year oil price slump, meant the total costs to consumers for the 35-year deal ballooned from £6bn in 2013 to £30bn now.
That number may rise even higher after new figures on power price expectations are released by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) next month.
Brexit could make matters worse still, the spending watchdog warned. In January, the government said it would quit a nuclear cooperation treaty as part of the process of leaving the EU.
That withdrawal from Euratom, the NAO said, “might be interpreted as a change of law” resulting in an adjustment of the £92.50 price promised to EDF, or even trigger a one-off payment for EDF through a compensation clause in the contract.
While the NAO concluded “it will not be known for decades whether Hinkley Point C will be value for money”, the usually conservative watchdog was strongly critical of the government for not assessing alternative finance models.
However, it said the report should not be taken as a recommendation that the government takes a stake in future nuclear projects – but the idea should be explored. Such an approach has been discussed by the Japanese and UK governments for a Japanese-backed plant in Wales.
Unions, industry experts and green groups said the report showed lessons must be learned for any future nuclear subsidy deals.
Commentators also raised questions over whether Hinkley would look cheap compared with alternatives such as wind and solar, which the government had argued would cost more.
Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union, which represents nuclear workers, said: “This is a deeply worrying report that highlights the lack of accountability and leadership in British nuclear policy.”
Dr Robert Gross of Imperial College called the report a “strong reprimand” of the past two governments.
A “slavish devotion” to free markets that ruled out taking a stake and failure to wait for other nuclear projects to bring competition were to blame, he said. “Renewables will become cheap, and this was not anticipated at all. It now looks likely that by the time it is built Hinkley will seem expensive compared to new solar and wind projects.”
Nina Schrank, energy campaigner at Greenpeace UK, called the report a damning indictment of the government’s agreement. “This year’s school leavers will still be paying for Hinkley when they approach their pension age, so it is concerning that the National Audit Office is suggesting it may not be worth their money,” she said.
Jim Skea, president of the Energy Institute, which represents energy professionals, said the report held “clear messages on the steps needed to protect consumers and taxpayers in the future, including possibly radical changes to nuclear policy”.
An EDF spokesman said: “Today’s report shows that Hinkley Point C remains good value for consumers compared with alternative choices. Consumers won’t pay a penny until the power station is operating and it is EDF Energy and CGN who will take the risk and responsibility of delivering it.”
A BEIS spokesman said: “Hinkley Point C will be the first new nuclear plant in a generation. This was an important strategic decision to ensure that nuclear is part of a diverse energy mix.
“Consumers won’t pay a penny until Hinkley is built; it will provide clean, reliable electricity powering homes and creating more than 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships in the process.”
Hernandez appoints “old friend” as her deputy
Owl says: can this woman sink any further into the swamp? How many people were interviewed for the job, one wonders. The Police and Crime Panel has to ratify the post. Now THAT will be interesting!
“Crime czar Alison Hernandez has named a Conservative colleague from her local council days as her second-in-command.
The Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner admitted in April this year that she was considering appointing a deputy commissioner to share the workload, including increased scrutiny.
She had toyed with the idea of campaigning for office alongside a running mate last year but eventually stood alone on the Tory ticket and was elected in her own right.
Now she has revealed that fellow Conservative and Torbay councillor Mark Kingscote will be her deputy.
Cllr Kingscote, a 55-year-old NHS support worker, who specialises in mental health is chairman of Torbay’s planning committee and a councillor since 2000.
He was born in Torquay and has been in the NHS for 25 years, is the elected member for Shiphay with the Willows, a ward Ms Hernandez used to jointly represent alongside him.
Devon Live first revealed the appointment earlier this month.
At the time Cllr Kingscote said he had not “had a conversation about” nor been offered the post, which carries an estimated salary level of £50,000 a year though it is expected to be part-time and cost the taxpayer closer to £30,000 annually.
However, he said he believed he had the experience to take on the role.
“I am more than capable of doing the job so I don’t see why not,” he added.
“I am chairman of the planning committee, have been on the scrutiny panel for more than four years and am perfectly capable of putting my hand to lots of different things.
“I have known Alison for a long time and we have worked together on lots of community projects in the past.
“I went down to help her last week – she said “do you want to come along?” and I said “yes”. It was quite casual, just supporting her really.
“I have been doing community engagement for a long time so it’s not unusual that I would get involved in a thing like that.
“I have been involved in diversity and supporting the police in wards I represent.”
Ms Hernandez is free to appoint a deputy, as other commissioners have, without approval from the Police and Crime Panel, which is set to convene early next month.
The commissioner’s predecessor, Conservative Tony Hogg, also took on paid help in the role.
He recruited Jan Stanhope for strategic support after he was elected, paying her around £20,000 a year for a two-day post, although she was not officially designated as his deputy.
Phillipa Davey, a Labour city councillor in Plymouth and a member of the panel which oversees the work of the commissioner, said that the appointment smacked of nepotism.
“I have to be careful what I say as at the moment I don’t know anything at all about the appointment or his credentials, she told Devon Live.
“It does seem a bit odd – jobs for people’s friends.
“I would be interested to know what experience he has and how qualified he is to do the job especially as this is a new post which we will all be paying for.”
The plans for a deputy come after the £100,000 a year chief executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner left at the end of last month.
Andrew White, who was recruited by Mr Hogg, has been hired by Lincolnshire Police to work as second-in-command to chief constable Bill Skelley.
Chief cons Skelly, who left his previous job as assistant chief constable in Devon and Cornwall last year, has hired White to become the force’s most senior civilian officer.
Ms Hernandez said she will next week ask the Police and Crime Panel to support the appointment of Mark Kingscote as her deputy.
She said he has significant experience in scrutinising the use of tax-payers money, planning, health (particularly mental health) and diversity.
“I have every confidence that Mark is the right person for this role,” she added.
“He is a strong individual who will represent the most vulnerable in our communities well, is committed to building safe, resilient and connected communities and with a track record in the areas we need to enhance efforts on.”
STPs may not be introduced till after Brexit – but are ‘Success Regimes’ similarly doomed or not?
Owl has had to resort to CAPITALS it is so mad!
OWL DOESN’T UNDERSTAND: IF STPs WON’T BE LEGISLATED FOR TILL AFTER BREXIT – WHY ARE LOCAL COMMUNITY HOSPITALS AND MATERNITY SERVICES CLOSED OR BEING CLOSED?
HONITON AND SEATON COMMUNITY HOSPITALS ARE ALREADY BEING WOUND DOWN FOR CLOSURE LATER THIS YEAR – IS HUNT SAYING THIS IS NOT LEGAL?
OUR DOCTORS AND OUR COMMUNITIES ARE AGAINST THESE PLANS, WHICH HUNT SAYS NEED LOCAL SUPPORT, SO IS OUR CCG ACTING ILLEGALLY?
TIME FOR THAT REFERRAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND A JUDICIAL REVIEW. THIS POWER-MAD, ARROGANT CCG NEEDS TO BE TAMED OR, BETTER STILL, DISSOLVED.
BUT YOU CAN BET OUR TWO MPs WON’T TOUCH THIS HOT POTATO! AND THAT MS RANDALL-JOHNSON WILL BE DEAF TO IT, AND DCC TORIES SPINELESS TOO.
THANK HEAVEN FOR PEOPLE LIKE CLAIRE WRIGHT, MARTIN SHAW AND ROGER GILES!
What Hunt said yesterday:
“Given the result of the latest general election and with the negotiations around Brexit due to start later this month, it is now unlikely that the government will be able to introduce legislation for sustainability and transformation plans (STPs) in the next few years – if at all.
Speaking at NHS Confederation yesterday, health secretary Jeremy Hunt argued that the legislative landscape has changed after a hung Parliament was declared last week. Because of this, it is unrealistic to expect the government to enact legislative health changes before the Brexit process is finished.
“We said [in our manifesto] that we would legislate to give STPs a statutory underpinning if that was felt to be necessary,” he said. “To be clear, we’re expecting to be in power until 2022 and deliver a stable government to make that possible.
“But obviously, the legislative landscape has changed, and that means that legislation of this nature is only going to be possible if there is a consensus across all political parties that it’s necessary. I don’t think that is in any way impossible, but it’s realistically not something we would do while the Brexit process was carrying on.”
Post-Brexit, he added, the government will have “a lot better understanding” of the legislative changes required by STPs. But even then, changing the law would require cross-party support – a much greater challenge now that the Conservatives no longer hold the majority in the House of Commons.
Responding to audience questions after his keynote speech, Hunt – who survived Theresa May’s recent political reshuffle – also hinted that the NHS could be in line to receive some more transformation funding.
Asked by a West Hampshire GP about the possibility of supporting transformation with ringfenced investment in order to enable new models of care elsewhere in the country, the health secretary argued “that is what the STP plans are about”.
But the biggest risk to pouring in more capital funding, he noted, is “if we don’t maintain the financial rigour and discipline that we started to see coming back into the system in the last year”.
“That was really what slowed down this process in the 2015-16 financial year, when we would’ve liked to put a lot more money into transformation,” the health secretary said. “But I think now we’re in a much, much better position to do that. We absolutely want to make sure that money is not an impediment to the rolling out of the STPs, because they are central to our vision.”
In fact, the recent NHS response to the horrific terrorist attack in Manchester, which saw staff working around the clock to cope with the unexpected demand, is a “very good reason for exactly what we’re trying to achieve with the STP process”, Hunt argued.
“The interesting lesson for me about the response in Manchester was how joined-up it was as a result of the terrific progress, under Jon Rouse’s leadership, that trusts have made in coming together as part of their STP,” he added. “I think they’ve probably gone further and faster than anywhere else in the country. I know it’s not been easy to do that, but it was extremely streamlined and effective.”
He also suggested that the government would be prepared to boost the region’s cash pot “if there are specific aspects of the response to those terrible events where there have been unexpected costs that the NHS incurred that wouldn’t be part of its normal response to emergency situations”.
STPs need local support
Asked by another audience member to explain the importance of bringing all local communities together into designing and delivering change, Hunt emphasised that the reasoning behind STPs is to bring about “fantastically beneficial” changes for patients.
“It’s a transformation that is wholly positive for the public,” the secretary of state said. “But people are passionate about their NHS and they obviously worry about any change that happens, and that’s why we have a responsibility to communicate that change. And that change is usually best not communicated by politicians, but by clinicians, because frankly you guys are trusted a lot more than we are.
“That’s why I think it’s really important to have that local engagement, and that’s why, when it comes to the big transformation plans, Simon Stevens and I are supporting them with every fibre in our bodies at a national level.
“But at a local level, we need you to be making the arguments. The evidence is that when you do that, even with potentially controversial changes, it’s quite possible to win the case to do them. But it does involve a lot of local engagement and I think that’s going to be one of the central challenges for the next few years.”
“EAST DEVON BACKS SENDING HOSPITAL BEDS ISSUE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE”
Blogpost by recently-elected Independent East Devon Alliance DCC Councillor Martin Shaw”
“East Devon District Council’s Scrutiny Committee called tonight for the existing level of community hospital beds in East Devon to be maintained, with no closures. It expressed ‘great concern’ that under the NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group’s plans ‘there will be no community hospital beds east of Sidmouth, leaving residents in a whole swathe of eastern Devon remote from the nearest hospital facilities.’
The Committee also agreed to write to Devon County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee, urging it to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Health ‘as a matter of urgency’ as it was ‘concerned that lack of an early submission will result in NEW Devon CCG going ahead with its proposals’. This followed a claim from Councillor Mike Allen that staff were already leaving and patients being turned away from Honiton Hospital. The point was echoed in comments by County Councillor Martin Shaw about Seaton Hospital.
The Committee’s resolution was the outcome of two hours’ pressure from Committee members, other councillors and the public on the Chair of the CCG’s Eastern Locality, Dr John Kerr. The resolution was proposed by Chairman, Councillor Roger Giles of Ottery St. Mary, who had interrogated CCG representatives on their proposals. He repeatedly asked ‘how many additional staff will be required’ for the CCG’s new model of care, only to be told ‘what is required’. Other members expressed doubt that enough new staff could be recruited.
Cllr Giles’ proposals followed speeches by Councillor Shaw and EDDC ward councillor Andrew Moulding of Axminster for keeping hospital beds in Seaton. Councillor Moulding pointed out that not only Axminster, but also Axmouth, Uplyme and Rousdon, had been omitted from the CCG’s calculations of the population served by Seaton Hospital.
Much of the discussion at the EDDC meeting reacted to the discussion at Devon’s Health Scrutiny Committee last Monday. Devon councillors had followed the recommendation of their Chairman, Councillor Sara Randall Johnson, to postpone until July a decision on Councillor Claire Wright’s proposal to refer the CCG’s decisions to the Secretary of State for Health. Councillor Shaw, who also addressed the Devon meeting, said afterwards that he was ‘incredibly disappointed and frustrated by the unnecessary and damaging delay’. Sixty protestors, from Honiton, Seaton, Colyton and other parts of Devon, had waved placards outside County Hall and had then watched the Scrutiny Committee, some of them jeering when it was proposed to delay the decision.
Councillor Shaw later expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the EDDC meeting, which he said ‘put saving the beds back on the agenda’ and pointed the way for Devon County Council’s Scrutiny Committee to follow when it reconvened. He said, ‘I am very pleased at the strong cross-party case made for East Devon hospitals and especially the mounting support for looking again at the CCG’s completely indefensible abandonment of Seaton. Keeping beds in Seaton has had tremendous backing this week, including not only from Councillor Moulding but also Councillor Hall from Axminster, and Mike McAlpine, Chair of the Committee for the Axe Valley Health Hub. Seaton’s Deputy Mayor, Martin Pigott, made an excellent case at County Hall.’
Councillor Shaw said it was very obvious that CCG representatives, Dr Sonja Manton at the Devon meeting and Dr Kerr at EDDC, had refused to answer direct questions about the flawed case for axing Seaton’s beds. ‘I am optimistic that when this comes back to Devon, councillors on the Health Scrutiny Committee will pick up the Seaton issue and we will finally get justice for our communities.’
Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton
EDDC’s reputation on planning described as “disaster area”
Express and Echo interview online with editor Patrick Phelvin had a brief mention of the reputation of East Devon (about 5 minutes into the interview on the video embedded within the article)
“being an absolute disaster area on matters like planning”
http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-mp-hugo-swire/story-30382446-detail/story.html
And, no, he hadn’t contacted Owl when he said it!
“Health and safety professionals urge deregulation rethink”
But it goes hand-in-glove with the Tory policy of the smaller state and the hands-off approach to development and developers!
“The government has been urged to rethink the deregulation of health and safety legislation in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, which is believed to have killed at least 79 people.
In an open letter to prime minister Theresa May, more than 70 leading organisations and figures from the UK’s health and safety professions have called for a change in attitude to health and safety regulation and fire risk management.
The signatories have also called on the government to complete its review of Part B of the Building Regulations 2010, which cover fire safety within and around buildings in England, as a matter of urgency.
The letter, whose signatories include the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), Park Health & Safety, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the British Safety Council, states: “We believe it is totally unacceptable for residents, members of the public and our emergency services to be exposed to this level of preventable risk in modern-day Britain.”
East Devon bursting at the seams – official!
Owl says: all these extra residents accessing fewer and fewer services. Let’s hope most of them are young and going to Cranbrook, Exmouth and Sidmouth – because there will be no maternity services or community hospitals in Axminster, Seaton, Honiton or Ottery St Mary.
“People moving to East Devon increased the population by almost 2,500 people – more than almost anywhere else in England and Wales.
An estimated 8,316 people moved to East Devon from elsewhere in the UK between July 2015 and June 2016.
This compared to 5,848 who went the other way during this time, new figures from the Office for National Statistics show.
This meant that an extra 2,468 people moved to East Devon than left – the second highest figure anywhere out of almost 350 counties and districts around England and Wales.
As of June 2016 there were 139,908 people in East Devon, meaning that 1.8 per cent of the population was made up of people who had just moved to the county from elsewhere within Britain.
This was the highest share out of anywhere in England and Wales.
The most popular destination for people to move to East Devon from was Exeter.
… A total of 700 people were estimated to have moved from East Devon to Exeter after subtracting those that went the other way, more than anywhere else.
On the other hand, Taunton Deane was the number one destination away from the area.
A net total of 54 people moved to Taunton Deane from East Devon in 2015/16.”
Another Tory dirty trick during the general election campaign?
“The Conservative party allegedly operated a secret call centre during the election campaign that may have broken data protection and election laws, according to an investigation by Channel 4 News.
An undercover investigation by the programme has found that the party used a market research firm to make thousands of cold calls to voters in marginal seats in the weeks before the election.
Call centre employees working on behalf of the party used a script that appeared to canvass for support rather conduct market research. On the day of the election, call centre employees contacted voters to promote individual candidates, which may be a breach of electoral law, the investigation claimed.
At the start of the election campaign, the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, wrote to all the major political parties reminding them of the law around telephone calls and data protection. She said that calling voters to promote a political party was “direct marketing” and was regulated by law.
The government also announced during the campaign that it wanted to tighten up the laws on nuisance calls and a bill on the issue was included in the Queen’s speech.
The Channel 4 News investigation, which ran over several weeks, found that a team employed by the Conservatives rang voters from a call centre in Neath, south Wales.
Operating from a script, the staff carried out calls for “market research” and “polling”. Identifying likely Tory voters in marginal seats could be important for the get-out-the-vote operation on election day, and also enable a political party to better direct its canvassing operation.
On election day, undecided voters were told that “the election result in your marginal constituency is going to be very close between Theresa May’s Conservatives and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party”.
They were then asked:
“So does knowing that you live in a marginal constituency that will determine who is prime minister for the Brexit negotiations, does that make you a lot more likely to vote for Theresa May’s Conservative candidate or a little more likely to vote for Theresa May’s Conservative candidate, or are you still unsure, or does it not make a difference?”
At an earlier stage of the campaign, the call centre staff said they were calling from a company called Axe Research, which does not appear to exist. Under the Data Protection Act, callers must disclose who they are and how the data will be used.
Asked what Axe Research was, one supervisor told Channel 4 News: “It’s just the name we do these surveys under, basically. I did a Google search, nothing comes up. But as far as anyone’s concerned, yeah, we’re a legit independent market research company.”
A week before the election, the same call centre staff started saying they were calling on behalf of Theresa May’s Conservatives.
The Conservative party said the call centre was conducting market research on its behalf, and was not canvassing for votes. The call centre confirmed it was employed by the party, but denied canvassing on its behalf.
A Conservative spokesman said: “Political parties of all colours pay for market research and direct marketing calls. All the scripts supplied by the party for these calls are compliant with data protection and information law.”
Evidence obtained by Channel 4 News suggests that on the day of the election, staff called voters in 10 marginal seats, including Bridgend, Gower, Clwyd South and Wrexham.
According to the Representation of the People Act, it is illegal to employ someone “for payment or promise of payment as a canvasser for the purpose of promoting or procuring a candidate’s election”. …”
“Heads warning of ‘cash starved’ schools”
“Heads are writing to parents warning them of deepening funding problems for schools.
Head teachers in England are keeping up the pressure on school funding, sending a letter warning about “cash-starved” schools to almost two million families.
As the government prepares to set out its plans in the Queen’s Speech, school leaders across 17 councils are calling for urgent action over a funding gap.
Claims over school funding shortages became an election battleground and a doorstep issue with voters.
The Conservative manifesto promised an extra £1bn per year from savings.
But there have been doubts cast on the biggest slice of this extra funding – with uncertainty over whether the government will go ahead with scrapping free meals for all infants.
With no majority in the House of Commons it would be more difficult to get through legislation to scrap the free meals for infants, introduced three years ago.
The plan to remove the meals came under fire from chef and healthy-school-food campaigner, Jamie Oliver.
Cutting staff
The funding warning letter will be sent by head teachers to parents in more than 4,000 schools, saying that many schools are going to have to cut staff and subject choices.
There were warnings before the election of schools having to reduce hours or even go down to a four-day week for some pupils.
School governors backed the concerns over funding, with the first ever “strike” by governors in West Sussex.
The letter will go to parents in the following councils: Brighton, East Sussex, Northamptonshire, Surrey, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Oxfordshire, Thurrock, Cornwall, Hertfordshire, Peterborough, Wokingham, Devon, Norfolk, Suffolk, West Sussex and Dorset.
Parents will be told about analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which said that the Conservatives’ plans for school spending would mean a “real-terms cut of 2.8% in per-pupil funding between 2016 and 2022″.
The head teachers sending this letter are part of a regionally based campaign over school funding shortages.
Teachers’ unions are also demanding greater investment in schools. …”
A tale of two seaside towns
Exmouth
BIG seafront development plans, unpopular with locals, lots of income for land-holding EDDC and big income potential, quick tender and choice of partner:
http://www.devonlive.com/here-s-what-the-exmouth-seafront-development-will-look-like/story-30067091-detail/story.html
Seaton
SMALL seafront development plans, popular with locals, almost no EDDC land- holding or big income potential, no tender, no progress:
http://www.devonlive.com/multi-million-pound-seaton-seafront-redevelopment-plans-revealed/story-30194330-detail/story.html
Gung-ho Exmouth, inertia on Seaton
If anything illustrates EDDC as business-led rather than resident-led this is it.
Oooh – Midweek Herald gets political – and on its front page!
Well, it’s a start. But, of course, it won’t offend EDDC as it is a DCC responsibility!
Local government property investment – the auditors’ roles
“Are these the magic money trees? The office blocks, shopping centres and petrol stations currently filling up the local government property portfolio with their promise of a harvest abundant enough to keep the fruit bowl full for years to come? Quite possibly, with a good soil for rooting, plenty of sunshine and lots of green-fingered attention. But also quite possibly not. Which is why you can expect a visit from your auditors, once they have remembered where they put their wellies.
It is a common scenario for auditors to have no knowledge of a substantial and risky project until it is too late for them to have any influence over it. Commercial sensitivities often lead to projects being run on a “need to know” basis, with external auditors joining internal auditors, scrutiny committees and sometimes even the section 151 officer on the other side of a firmly locked door.
The auditor may only find out about a project when the ink is drying on the contract, when there doesn’t seem much more to do than offer a sheet of blotting paper.
However, there is still a lot that the auditor can do that would be of benefit, even if there is nothing to be critical about.
For instance, the Spelthorne Borough Council £360m purchase of the BP campus with new borrowings of £377m against a budget requirement of around £13m is such a huge transaction that its mere existence surely justifies a public interest report from the auditors to reassure the local population that their new role as BP’s landlords will not weigh heavy upon them. There is no reason why public interest reports have to be reserved for bad news.
Unfortunately, auditors are not particularly keen on bringing good news. The best you will get is “negative assurance”: a declaration that, based on the investigations carried out, there is nothing that provokes the need for criticism. But this would still be a valuable contribution and is arguably what is required by the reporting duties in Schedule 7 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
The least that we can expect is that auditors will eventually say enough to manage their reputation risk – limiting the possibility that someone at some point in the future could ask “where were the auditors?”. A couple of paragraphs in the audit letter affirming that it is an authority’s responsibility to make its own investment decisions and summarising the less reliable judgements by which those decisions have been taken.
So what will the auditors be particularly interested in?
Legal Powers
Since the introduction of the general power of competence, people seem more relaxed about identifying the legal powers supporting a decision. However, it is still important to know what powers are being exercised, particularly in understanding the implications of the limitations on those powers for a particular proposal.
For instance, the general power comes with restrictions on charging other than to recover costs and requires commercial activity to be run via a company. And the investment powers in the Local Government Act 2003 only extend to purposes relevant to an authority’s functions or the prudent management of its financial affairs. Advice confirming legality will be expected.
It is sometimes forgotten, by those without a legal background, that even if a power can be identified, then that power has to be exercised reasonably under the Wednesbury rules. Auditors will look for legal advice being properly grounded.
If an authority is borrowing to fund its purchases, there may also be questions about the propriety of borrowing to invest. Not so long ago this is something that would have rung alarm bells across the audit community. Judging by their appearance before the Public Accounts Committee in 2016, though, it does not seem a matter that DCLG and the Treasury are overly concerned by.
Finally, how are these projects integrated into the Prudential Framework? Arguments can be put that asset prices will rise to more than cover the cost of acquiring property and making good its depreciation, such that Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) is not needed. But this is risking a potentially major funding problem if the value/cost relationship shifts adversely in the future. How can an authority demonstrate its legal duty to act prudently?
Value for Money
Auditors will be concerned to examine all the significant judgements, estimates and projections involved in a decision to invest. They will also review accounting treatments to ensure they align costs and benefits appropriately and look critically at funding and financing arrangements.
Exit strategies will also be relevant, particularly noting that if rental income falls sale of a property will only generate a capital receipt rather than revenue income that might fill the gap in the budget.
Any reporting in this area will be restricted to the adequacy of the arrangements put in place by the authority to achieve value for money and will not provide any comfort that it has actually been achieved.
Decision Making
Auditors will check that the authority has complied with its democratic framework and schemes of delegation, particularly if the proposal has proceeded on a “need to know” basis.
So, if you are in the process of bulking up your property portfolio, prepare for the muddy tread of your auditors as they come to gaze sceptically upon your magic money tree.
Stephen Sheen is the managing director of Ichabod’s Industries, a consultancy providing technical accounting support to local government.
Demonisation of the poor – Trump shows how to do it bigly
“Donald Trump has said he doesn’t want “a poor person” to hold economic roles in his administration as he used an Iowa rally to defend his decision to appoint the wealthy to his cabinet.
The US president told a crowd on Wednesday night: “Somebody said why did you appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy? No it’s true. And Wilbur’s [commerce secretary Wilbur Ross] a very rich person in charge of commerce. I said: ‘Because that’s the kind of thinking we want.’”
Congressional Black Caucus refuses to meet with Donald Trump
The president explained that Ross and his economic adviser Gary Cohn “had to give up a lot to take these jobs” and that Cohn in particular, a former president of Goldman Sachs, “went from massive pay days to peanuts”.
Trump added: “And I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don’t want a poor person. Does that make sense?”
The DUP, corruption, transparency
“The government needs to get its business through parliament – that’s what governments do. So it’s no surprise that the prime minister is looking to bolster her reduced number of MPs with the support of others, specifically the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). But at what cost to the government’s reputation for fighting corruption?
Northern Ireland doesn’t currently have an elected government. Four months ago the devolved administration collapsed in acrimony following controversy about the ‘Cash for Ash’ scandal over the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme. The assembly election which followed didn’t change the fact that politicians from both nationalist and unionist traditions needed to agree to work together to restore devolved government. This hinged on demands for the DUP’s leader Arlene Foster to stand aside for the duration of the independent public inquiry into RHI scheme, which she has refused to do.
To re-cap: the UK’s prime minister is seeking support for her government in negotiations with a party leader who lost her hold on government over serious questions about the use of public funds.
There have been several recent corruption concerns in Northern Ireland. The National Crime Agency has opened an investigation, at the request of the local police, into the sale of Northern Ireland assets owned by the Republic of Ireland’s National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). Other issues relate to the management of public contracts for housing maintenance. Meanwhile, the funding of most of Northern Ireland’s political parties remains unusually opaque. All of this is hard to assess, but we have a responsibility not to just shrug and accept such things as a normal part of modern politics.
A possible deal to support the new UK government in parliament is not the only reason why transparency over who funds Northern Ireland’s political parties now matters to British politics. The DUP was used as a channel for hundreds of thousands of pounds to support the Leave campaign during last year’s EU referendum.
In the past five years, the UK has established itself with a reputation for global leadership in the fields of tackling corruption and its counterpart, promoting open government. The UK has risen to be in the top ten of Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index, the Serious Fraud Office has acquired one of the better anti-bribery enforcement records around the world, and this country has been a leader in the Open Government Partnership.
As the curtain fell of the last parliament, the previous government passed the Criminal Finances Act, with its ground-breaking provision for Unexplained Wealth Orders to freeze the assets of kleptocrats using the UK as a safe haven. Much remains to be done but worryingly, some of the gains of recent years could now be at risk. The long road to the arrival of the Bribery Act reminds us that there are those who will seize any opportunity to lobby to weaken it, and others who in difficult times for the economy will argue we should seek to attract foreign cash irrespective of its origin. …”
Could this be our next Prime Minister? Please, NO!
Anyone who voted Conservative in East Devon but who might be wobbling nos, PLEASE read this and do your research on the ONLY alternative – Claire Wright. And ask yourself – is this better or worse than Diane Abbott forgetting a couple of numbers.
“It must have seemed a good idea at the time. A 15-minute light grilling on the morning BBC sofa with whichever stand-in presenter the corporation had dredged up to fill the void left by Andrew Marr, still recovering from a stroke. Nothing that an old hand like Boris Johnson need fear.
Tousle the hair a little, some self-deprecation and a bit of a plug for the BBC TV documentary on Monday to remind the Tory backbenchers that if the ball ever popped out of the scrum, he would be on hand to take it, almost accidentally, over the line. A spot of liberal differentiation from his school chum David Cameron on the benefits of migrants might provide with him an entry to the likely story of the day, the prime minister’s imminent speech on migrants and access to social housing. But after the 15 minutes of chilling inquisition by the softly spoken Eddie Mair, Johnson’s reputation had taken a severe pounding. Indeed, it was probably the worst interview the mayor has ever conducted.
It was inevitably described as a car crash, but in the case of Johnson, it was more of a bicycle crash: spokes all over the road, wheels mangled and a reputation badly dented.
After the opening exchanges – “Good morning, how are you?”; “Very, very good, thank you” – Johnson went downhill at an alarming pace until by the interview’s close, admitting he had “sandpapered” quotes as a Times journalist, failing to deny he lied to the party leader at the time, Michael Howard, about an extramarital affair and conceding that he had humoured an old friend when he asked for a phone number in the knowledge that the friend intended to beat up the owner of it.
By the interview’s close, “You’re a nasty piece of work, aren’t you?” was one of Mair’s more generous reflections on Johnson’s integrity.
Doubtless Johnson had been lulled into a false sense of security by the opening minutes in which he was able to hint, without providing incontrovertible proof, that he thought Cameron was misunderstanding the importance of migrants to the London economy.
He also gently put the boot into his predecessor as mayor for failing to plan the London Olympics’ stadium properly. He came across as the charming, talented politician that he is.
But then Mair took the interview on an unexpected turn, and asked Johnson why he had agreed to be interviewed for the Michael Cockerell documentary. Johnson flannelled before, saying he had not seen the programme. Suddenly Mair’s tone changed lethally: “But this happened in your life, so you know about this. The Times let you go after you made up a quote. Why did you make up a quote?”
It is impossible to describe the menacing politeness of tone in which Mair specialises, or his ability to pause mid-sentence to maximise the impact. Johnson asked plaintively: “Are you sure your viewers wouldn’t want to hear more about housing in London?” It was, he added, a long and lamentable story, to which Mair replied: “OK. But you made a quote up.”
Johnson was cornered. “Well, what happened was that … I ascribed events that were supposed to have taken place before the death of Piers Gaveston to events that actually took place after the death of Piers Gaveston,” he said.
“Yes. You made something up,” Mair replied. Johnson said: “Well, I mean, I mildly sandpapered something somebody said, and yes it’s very embarrassing and I’m very sorry about it.”
With this admission trousered, Mair continued: “Let me ask you about a barefaced lie. When you were in Michael Howard’s team, you denied to him you were having an affair. It turned out you were and he sacked you for that. Why did you lie to your party leader?”
Johnson squirmed. “Well, I mean again, I’m … with great respect … on that, I never had any conversation with Michael Howard about that matter and, you know, I don’t propose …”
Mair interrupted: “You did lie to him.”
Johnson: “Well, you know, I don’t propose to go into all that again.”
Mair: “I don’t blame you.”
Johnson: “No, well why should I? I’ve been through, you know, that question a lot with the, well, watch the documentary. Why don’t we talk about something else?”
Unfortunately for Johnson, Mair was willing to change the subject.
Referring to the documentary, Mair explained: “The programme includes your reaction as you listen to a phonecall in which your friend Darius Guppy asks you to supply the address of a journalist … so that he can have him physically assaulted. The words ‘beaten up’ and ‘broken ribs’ are said to you …”
Johnson replied after snorting about an old story being dragged up. “Yes, it was certainly true that he was in a bit of a state and I did humour him in a long phone conversation, from which absolutely nothing eventuated and … you know, there you go. But I think if any of us had our phone conversations bugged, they might, you know, people say all sorts of fantastical things whilst they’re talking to their friends.”
Mair proceeded to inform, in passing, a dazed Johnson that even convicted fraudster Conrad Black does not quite trust him, before asking him to show some honesty by openly admitting that his ambition is to be prime minister rather than trading in obfuscatory metaphors such as rugby balls emerging from a ruck or saying it is not going to happen.
Mair: “You’re not going to land on the moon either. But do you want to be prime minister. Say it.”
Johnson obfuscated, presumably hoping for something to eventuate, before saying he wanted to do all he could to help Cameron be re-elected – “and in those circumstances it is completelynonsensical for me to indulge, you know, this increasingly hysterical …”
Mair: “You could end it all just by saying what you know to be true. What should viewers make of your inability to give a straight answer to a straight question?”
By now most viewers are hiding behind their sofa, or telling their gawking children to look away, or ringing the BBC begging them to show the test card.
With the clock running down, Johnson desperately tries to mount a recovery, saying he disputes Mair’s interpretations. Then he resorts to the old standby: “What viewers want to know is …”
He said: “They don’t care about phone conversations with my friends 20 years ago, they don’t care about some ludicrous, so-called made-up quote, and what’s the third accusation? I can’t remember …”
“Lying to Michael Howard,” Mair reminds him, before Johnson finally collapses in a heap, his lights, pannier bag and reputation strewn across the bicycle lane.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-interview-eddie-mair
East Devon Watch 