First 6.6 miles from Euston to Old Oak Common could cost more than £8bn
Monthly Archives: July 2017
“Countryside in crisis”
“In a pointed letter to the Times, the [Rural] coalition declared that: “More than nine million people live and work in rural England, yet their concerns are in danger of being squeezed out if Brexit discussions focus only on agriculture and the environment.”
The effects of austerity and corporate cost-cutting had already decimated vital rural services, it argued, “risking rural communities becoming enclaves only for the wealthy”.
Talking to various members of that group, you get a feel for the range of different perspectives, but also of the shared insistence that Brexit will not just affect the countryside in terms of a withdrawal from the Common Agricultural Policy and related regulation and subsidy, but is also likely to bring to a head issues concerning the fabric of rural life that have long been unravelling.
…“Do we want the countryside just to be a national park and import our food from elsewhere or do we want it to be full of thriving communities that can be a productive part of the economy?”
… The Rural Coalition wants at least 7,500 affordable houses for young families to be built per year to reverse this trend. Paul Miner of Campaign to Protect Rural England argues that, with concerted policy action, “a commonplace sight in the countryside could be thriving communities boosted by new affordable homes”.
… There is a very big if there, of course, to go alongside the multiple other ifs on the horizon. At the heart of this one is the question of what we collectively understand rural Britain to be about. Whether it is a green and pleasant backdrop to insistently urban priorities, or whether it can re-establish a community that works for all generations and income groups. Hudswell suggests perhaps part of that solution can be created by the communities themselves.
“The story really is,” Lightfoot says, “if you sit back, nothing happens.”
“Or,” Cullen says, “you look around one day and think, hey, Christ, we have lost everything.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/15/countryside-crisis-rural-britain-north-yorkshire
The execution of the NHS
“The extent of the crisis in England’s GP services has been laid bare. And if there was any doubt as to why patients are struggling to get appointments with their doctors, Jeremy Hunt now has the answer right in front of him. And it’s staggering.
Staggering numbers
NHS Digital has released statistics [pdf] on the number of GP surgeries that have opened and closed, for the year up until 30 June 2017. And they show that, in the space of 12 months, 202 GP practices either closed or merged across England; with just eight opening to replace them.
As GP Online reported, the regional breakdown of closures and mergers was:
North of England – 64.
South of England – 54.
Midlands and East – 45.
London – 39.
GPs pushed to the brink
But the closures were confined to 47% of the 209 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG); meaning the majority of England saw no closures or mergers at all. In contrast, NHS Digital’s data showed that the number of patients registered with GPs had increased, again; up 55,178 in July compared to June. And there are now 2,427,526 more registered patients than in July 2013. Meanwhile, the number of full-time GPs dropped by nearly 3% in the year up to March 2017.
NHS Digital’s figures come as the British Medical Association (BMA) has balloted its GP members for industrial action. This would involve GP practices stopping taking any new patients. They would either suspend new patient registrations, or apply for a formal closure of patient registration lists.
The broader context
But any action by GPs comes in the context of a wider crisis within the NHS. As The Canary has repeatedly documented:
The amount the NHS paid to ‘independent’ companies has more than doubled since 2010 to over £8bn a year.
8% of government health funding now goes to private companies.
Private companies working in the NHS have seen their profits soar by up to 100%.
The NHS has seen a real-terms cut in the amount of money given to it per patient.
The Tories have cut the number of people getting social care by 26%. And they’ve cut £50m from children’s mental health services.
Successive Tory-led governments have capped [paywall] the pay rises of doctors, nurses and healthcare workers at just 1%.
Additionally, between 2010 and 2015, mental health trusts lost the equivalent of £598m a year from their budgets. And findings show that there are still £4.5m of mental health spending cuts to come. Also, there will be an additional £85m in cuts to public health budgets this year alone.
A GP speaks out
The Canary spoke to writer and GP Dr Kailash Chand OBE. And he perhaps best summed up the situation:
General practice, ‘the jewel in the crown of the NHS’, is at the brink of extinction. Across the board, GPs today are underpaid and overworked. The NHS is losing good people because GPs feel demoralised. They haven’t had a pay rise in seven years: a 1% uplift this year is a real-terms pay cut. The entire crop of GPs is undervalued, and more and more work and expectations are being put on them.
But the NHS is also facing financial meltdown, catastrophic workforce issues and political uncertainty. It is a world-class institution – with world-class practitioners now being torn apart by second-rate politicians. We are already on the way to the end of comprehensive healthcare, free at the point of need, available to all who need it.
Once the NHS is gone, it will be gone forever. And sick people will face the nightmare of not being able to afford the treatment they need. It’s time to stand up and fight!
The end of the NHS?
We have a now-permanent crisis in hospitals; GP surgeries over-subscribed and at breaking point; and social care is severely under-funded. But many believe that the Tories’ approach to the NHS is one of ‘shock therapy‘; that is, create a crisis so bad that the only apparent solution is to sell it off to private companies. And with this latest news about GP practices, we could – as Chand says – be well on the way to the end of the NHS as we know it.”
Claire Wright has grave reservations on Tory Party and Swire’s commitment to environment
“I have submitted a question for the next Devon County Council full meeting prompted by the government’s lack of action and any assurance on moving current EU environmental protections into UK law.
The subject has concerned environmental charities enough for them to establish a coalition of 30 and a pledge for MPs to sign up to to prove their commitment to retaining such protections through the so called Great Repeal Bill, which is when EU law becomes domestic law.
Over 200 MPs have signed this pledge. When I asked Hugo Swire to sign the pledge he refused and wrote this disappointing blog post in response:
https://www.hugoswire.org.uk/news/blog-birds-and-bees-and-brexit
The Great Repeal Bill (coming very soon) gives an option for the government to strip out or amend any laws they don’t like look of.
Very concerned at some of the messages seeping out from senior Conservative ministers on this subject I lodged a motion at the April Devon County Council, as East Devon has some of the most spectacular and precious landscapes and wildlife currently protected under EU legislation and those protections absolutely must be retained.
My motion, which was supported by every DCC councillor bar one, can be found here – http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/devon_county_council_signs_up_to_my_motion_on_protecting_devons_nature_afte
But when I checked up on the response from ministers to my motion I was deeply disappointed.
It contains absolutely no commitment whatsoever on retaining vital environmental protections nor does it even hint at it.
It rather takes the wind out of Hugo Swire’s claims on his blog post!
Ministers need to be urgently pursued on this and Hugo Swire is the route to do it.
I think we need to maintain a healthy scepticism here and if you are reading this blog PLEASE email Hugo Swire and ask him to work HARD and urgently on this issue.
He needs urgent meetings with his ministerial colleagues and he needs to make it clear PUBLICLY where he stands on any such vote. Residents should reasonably require him to speak against and vote against ANY attempt to water down or scrap this legislation.
Mr Swire needs to stop labelling any concerned voices as scaremongerers and actually take some action.
Here is my question scheduled for the full council meeting on Thursday 25 July – and the response from government to my motion that was backed by full council in April:
“Is the leader content with the reply from Kevin Woodhouse of DEFRA, dated 5 June, to my notice of motion approved almost unanimously by this council on 27 April, which called on government ministers to retain the same environmental protections as we leave the EU, as currently exist under EU legislation.
“The reply from Mr Woodhouse states: “The environment is a natural asset that provides us with numerous benefits such as clear water, clean air, food and timber, flood protection and recreation.
““Regarding future policy, until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the EU and all right and obligations of EU membership remain in force.””
Here is more information about the so-called Great Repeal Bill – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39266723
Email Hugo Swire at hugo.swire.mp@parliament.uk
If you care about this, fight for it. Please. Before it is lost forever.
A solution to the housing crisis? The flatpack house
Inventor David Martyn, 58, of Wallingford, Oxfordshire, said the building’s partitions and storage space allow it to be used as a home, classrooms, business spaces, operating theatres and shelters for refugees.
Well, that could put developers out of business, so you can bet they are looking for ways of sabotaging it!
Councillors and developers – a (happy for them) marriage made in hell
Journalist Anna Minton wrote a damning report in 2013 (“Scaring the Living Daylights out of People”) heavily featuring the chilling antics of the East Devon Business Forum and its disgraced Chairman, former EDDC councillor Graham Brown and mentions this in today’s article in The Guardian:
Click to access e87dab_fd0c8efb6c0f4c4b8a9304e7ed16bc34.pdf
This article on the politicisation of planning is reproduced in its entirety as there was not one sentence that Owl could cut. Although the article concentrates on cities it applies equally to areas such as East Devon.
“The politicisation of planning has come with the growth of the regeneration industry. While once planning officers in local government made recommendations that elected members of planning committees generally followed, today lobbyists are able to exert far greater influence.
It’s not easy to see into this world, but there are traces in the public domain. Registers of hospitality, for example, detail some of the interactions between councillors and the commercial property business. Take a week in the life of Nick Paget-Brown, the Kensington and Chelsea leader who resigned in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire. In October last year he had lunch at the five-star riverside Royal Horseguards Hotel courtesy of the property giant Willmott Dixon. The previous evening he had been at a reception put on by the business lobby group London First, whose membership is dominated by property and housing firms. He had breakfast with the Grosvenor Estate, the global property empire worth £6.5bn, and lunch at Knightsbridge’s Carlton Tower Hotel. This was paid for by the Cadogan Estate, the second largest of the aristocratic estates (after Grosvenor), which owns 93 acres in Kensington, including Sloane Square and the King’s Road.
Rock Feilding-Mellen, the councillor in charge of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, who has stepped down as the council’s deputy leader, had his own list of engagements. As the Grenfell Action Group noted earlier this year, he was a dinner guest of Terrapin, the firm founded by Peter Bingle, a property lobbyist renowned for lavish hospitality.
Bingle is also a player in the other big regeneration story of recent weeks: Haringey council’s approval of plans for its HDV – Haringey development vehicle. This is a “partnership” with the Australian property developer Lendlease, a lobbying client of Terrapin’s. The HDV promises to create a £2bn fund to build a new town centre and thousands of new homes, but local residents on the Northumberland Park housing estate, whose homes will be demolished, are vehemently opposed. The Haringey leader, Claire Kober, has lunched or dined six times at Terrapin’s expense.
In Southwark, just as in Haringey and Kensington, there is a revolving door between politicians and lobbyists. The former leader of Southwark council, Jeremy Fraser, went on to found the lobbying firm Four Communications, where he was joined by Southwark’s former cabinet member for regeneration Steve Lancashire. Derek Myers, who until 2013 jointly ran Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham councils, is now a director of the London Communications Agency, a lobbying agency with property developers on its client list. Merrick Cockell, the leader of Kensington and Chelsea until 2013, now chairs the lobbying firm Cratus Communications, which also specialises in property lobbying. In Westminster, the hospitality register for the last three years of its deputy leader, Robert Davis – chair of the council’s planning committee for 17 years – runs to 19 pages.
Cities other than London and rural areas also provide examples of worrying relationships. In East Devon a serving councillor was found in 2013 to be offering his services as a consultant to help developers get the planning decisions they wanted. In Newcastle a councillor who worked for a lobbying company boasted of “tricks of the trade” that included making sure planning committees included friendly faces.
Meanwhile the culture of regular meetings and socialising does not stop with councils. The diary of David Lunts, head of housing and land at the Greater London Authority for the first three months of 2017, reveals a lunch in Mayfair with Bingle, a VIP dinner laid on by a London developer, another meal paid for by a housing giant, and dinner on Valentine’s Day with a regeneration firm. Consultants and a developer furnished him with more meals before he headed off to Cannes for Mipim, the world’s biggest property fair. He also had dinner with Rydon, the firm that refurbished Grenfell Tower.
Further up the food chain, it was only because of Bingle’s boasts that we heard of a dinner he gave the then local government secretary, Eric Pickles. Held in the Savoy’s Gondoliers Room, it was also attended by business chiefs, including one who was waiting for a planning decision from Pickles’s department. The dinner was never declared on any register of hospitality because Pickles said he was attending in a private capacity.
Lunt’s former colleague Richard Blakeway, who was London’s deputy mayor for housing until last year, and David Cameron’s adviser on housing policy, became a paid adviser to Willmott Dixon. He is also on the board of the Homes and Communities Agency, the government body that regulates and invests in social housing. Its chair is Blakeway’s old boss, the former London deputy mayor for policy and planning Ed Lister, who is also a non-executive director of the developer Stanhope.
The MP Mark Prisk, housing minister until 2013, advocated “removing unnecessary housing, construction and planning regulations” as part of the government’s red tape challenge. He became an adviser to the property developer Essential Living, eight months after leaving office. Prisk advises the firm on legislation, providing support for developments and “brand” building. Essential Living’s former development manager Nick Cuff was also a Conservative councillor and chair of Wandsworth’s planning committee. A colleague of Cuff’s, who spent 30 years in the south London borough’s planning department, now works for Bingle’s lobbying firm, Terrapin.
This is the world that Kensington’s Paget-Brown and Feilding-Mellen, Haringey’s Kober and countless other council leaders inhabit. Socialising between these property men – and they are mostly men – is used to cement ties, and the lines between politician, official, developer and lobbyist are barely drawn. This culture, and the questions of accountability it raises, must be part of the public inquiry into Grenfell. It is perhaps no surprise that the government doesn’t want it to be.
• Tamasin Cave, a director of the lobbying transparency organisation Spinwatch, contributed to this article”
Local government “needs tough questions” … but what about the answers?
Owl says: but what happens when people simply refuse to answer those tough questions because they have their employees and/or their council majority councillors under such tough control they can over-ride those tough questions by just ignoring them or spinning nonsensical responses!
“Good governance across the public sector requires people who are willing to ask tough questions, CIPFA conference delegates heard today.
Peter Welch, director of the European Court of Auditors, speaking at an afternoon workshop on governance failures, responded to a question asking why there was a “fundamental lack of understanding of role and responsibility” across the public sector.
“If we want governance to really work we really need people who are not afraid to ask tough questions,” he said.
Panellists and the audience talked about the lack of diversity in public sector auditing.
Welch said “diversity works” to ensure there are people in organisations to ask the tough questions.”
“Transformation plans” – a mortal danger to the public?
Our council talks a lot about its so-called “transformation plans” which are supposed to make it leaner and meaner – doing more with less. Except, of course, for its relocation plans, which get more and more bloated with every passing week (“doing the same with more”?).
It trumpets its plans – nay strategy, here:
Click to access transformation-strategy.pdf
There are objectives in it such as “WorkSmart”, “centred”, “clear”, “simple”, “fast”, “organised” and “rational”. As if our council was currently WorkDumb, off-centre, opaque, complex, slow, disorganised and irrational was the alternative. Hhhmm – let’s not go there!
But one word is missing – SAFE.
In the light of the Grenfell Tower disaster, we have seen that ALL of the above can impact directly on council tax payers to make them less safe – as cost-cutting (the REAL meaning of transformation plans) is the major driver.
The London Borough of Newham is so concerned that it has paused its transformation plans on hold saying:
“… Inevitably…in a programme of this scale there are certain areas which have associated risks to delivery both in timing and quantum. Due to the sheer complexity and scale of what the transformation programme is trying to achieve, there are risks attached with the programme being able to deliver fully against its target. Therefore, an adjustment of c£2m has been made to recognise potential non-delivery of savings/income shortfall for 2018/19.”
So, we (and EDDC) must ask: how far is too far?
And is the council’s relocation being done at great expense, when that money ought to be ploughed back into services that have been cut to the bone and may be much less safe for us all? In its race to be bottom of council tax bills has it also been a race to the bottom for our safety?
This is, of course, a national problem – driven by austerity cuts. But have our councils (DCC and EDDC) and other institutions such as the NHS been too passive or even too welcoming of these cuts and too conveniently blind to see their consequences?
EDDC officer accuses East Devon Alliance chairman of “point scoring” over (second) postal vote cockup
Owl says: if the point IS scored, surely that speaks for itself! And anyone reading this supposedly “neutral” officer’s report is bound to wonder if it is, er, political!
“East Devon District Council’s monitoring officer has accused the chairman of the East Devon Alliance of political point-scoring after he raised concerns that the council’s scrutiny committee were not able to investigate a postal vote ‘cock-up’ ahead of the General Election.
Packs that were issued on May 25 contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper were issued to more than 9,000 voters in the constituency.
East Devon District Council who were responsible for printing the ballot papers but Mark Williams, the council’s returning officer, issued a statement reassuring voters that no postal votes had been affected as a result of the error.
The ‘cock-up’ has left Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, furious, and said that he would have more confidence in a village raffle than in Mr Williams running the forthcoming election and asked the council’s scrutiny committee at their last meeting in June to interrogate the reasons why 9,000 unmarked Parliamentary ballot papers were issued to postal voters.
But in response, he was told that the current legal assessment is that the remit of the Scrutiny Committee does not extend to Parliamentary elections, which is the remit of the Electoral Commission.
Mr Arnott queried this advice with the Electoral Commission, and says he was told that there is nothing laid down about where electoral matters can or can’t be discussed within the framework of local authority governance, and ultimately it is up to the Council and its operation of its scrutiny function as to whether any or all elections or electoral related matters are included in that scrutiny.
He has written to the council, asking them to take on board this advice and for scrutiny to investigate the matter, but in response, Henry Gordon Lennox, the Strategic Lead (Governance and Licensing) and Monitoring Officer of East Devon District Council, said that Mr Arnott had misinterpreted the advice he had been given and said that his query was ‘politically driven’.
The scrutiny committee have recommended to the council’s ruling Cabinet that the Chief Executive’s pending report on the election does includes explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.
Mr Gordon Lennox in a statement said: “In my view, Mr Arnott has misinterpreted the advice from the Electoral Commission, who said that there were no legislative provisions dealing with the role of Scrutiny and elections and therefore it is down to the rules of each authority that will dictate whether or not there is a role for Scrutiny.
“Mr Arnott has taken this to say that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee should be reviewing the conduct of elections. However, what they aresaying, and it is my view too, is that effectively it is the Council’s Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Scrutiny Committee that determine whether they can consider elections or electoral related matters.
“In general terms the role of Scrutiny is to review the actions relating to the various functions of the Council (in whatever form that takes). The role of Returning Officer is not part of the Council, save for the elections relating to towns and parishes and the district. It is for this reason that the Scrutiny Committee do not have the authority to consider the actions and conduct of the Acting Returning Officer / Deputy Returning Officer in the Parliamentary / County elections respectively.
“I think it important to also address the political side of this. I note that Mr Arnott says this is not political. However, Mr Arnott refers to the East Devon Alliance (EDA) report submitted to East Devon District Council following the May 2015 elections.
“Mr Arnott was at the time the Chair of the EDA and therefore a part of the Executive Committee who produced and submitted the report. At the County elections, Mr Arnott was an appointed election agent for the EDA.
“In the correspondence arising out of the postal vote issue during the Parliamentary election, Mr Arnott, when officially signing off his emails, referred to himself as the Chairman and Nominating Officer of the EDA.
“So my perception, notwithstanding what Mr Arnott says, is that his query is politically driven. To that end, the role of Scrutiny is supposed to be apolitical and I would be concerned that even if it were permissible for Scrutiny to be considering this matter, that the purpose for them so doing would be questionable.
“I have explained this matter in some detail in order to ensure that the correct context is understood and to give clarity on the issue. I would further confirm that, despite the above, it is my understanding that the Returning Officer will be presenting a report to Scrutiny at its next meeting on the key priorities he is working on, following what will now be the standard practice of a review process taking place after each election.”
The scrutiny committee have recommended to the council’s ruling Cabinet that the Chief Executive’s pending report on the election does includes explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.
East Devon District Council’s Cabinet committee will consider the recommendation on Thursday, July 13.”
Swire’s latest question in Parliament – this time on India
“While I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister raised the issue of the Chennai Six with Mr Modi at the G20, may I urge my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to focus his efforts on the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and to seek an urgent meeting with her? Our boys have been languishing in jail there for almost four years—I visited them there myself—and it is time, frankly, that they were brought home.”
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-07-11b.151.7&s=speaker%3A11265#g155.7
Who watches over East Devon with its busy absentee MPs?
Neil Parish was re-elected as chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee, beating Tory former London mayoral candidate [and multi-millionaire] Zac Goldsmith.
So, the Honiton and Tiverton constituency will be seeing very little of Parish, especially as he will return to his Somerset home when not in London.
And with Swire terribly busy with his other jobs which bring him in £5,000 a month (directorship of Photo-Me and chairmanship of the Conservative Middle East Council) and retiring to his home in mid-Devon on his days off we are mostly bereft of their company here in East Devon – except for the odd whistle-stop tours and photo opportunities.
That just leaves runner-up general election candidates Claire Wright (Independent, resident of Ottery St Mary) and Caroline Kolek (Labour, resident of Honiton) to watch over East Devon in their frequent absences.
Many might feel that this is the better outcome!
When privatisation goes bad – Carillion part 2
We are endlessly being told that “privatisation good, state ownership bad”. There is an implied belief that anything state-run is inherently badly managed, inefficient and wasteful whereas companies which take on former state-run entities are well-managed, efficient and better at using resources.
Carillion (and earlier on this year Capita and Mitie – not to forget all the utility companies) have proved that this idea totally wrong.
“… there is a support services arm [of Carillion], which includes maintenance on buildings and cleaning services. And, thirdly, there is PPP, where it might fund and manage the building of a new NHS hospital.
PPP is one of those financial inventions that was sold as being a win-win for both sides. The government might get some new infrastructure more quickly and without having to pay the huge upfront costs of building it, while the private companies financing the deal gained a valuable long-term income stream – often over 20 years or so. At least, that was the theory.
Just three Carillion PPP contracts – thought to be the Midland Metropolitan hospital in Smethwick, Merseyside’s Royal Liverpool hospital and an Aberdeen road project – are behind the bulk of the £375m losses that relate to the UK.
Industry watchers say that project delays – caused by such astonishing occurrences such as cold weather in Aberdeen over the winter – have introduced huge extra costs. Construction of the Royal Liverpool hospital has also been beset with hold-ups, most recently after workers found “extensive” asbestos on site and cracks in the new building.
Meanwhile, just before the profit warning, it was revealed that another Carillion project – an experimental tram-train linking Sheffield and Rotherham – has cost more than five times the agreed budget and is running almost three years late. The government has been forced to compensate tram operator Stagecoach for the delays with a £2.5m payment.
These types of setback are frequent complaints of investors in the sector and is one of the reasons the City has long taken a dim view of Carillion. For months, the company has been one of the UK stock market’s most shorted companies – meaning that investors have been placing bets on a fall in the company’s share price. …”
So, what do we learn from this? Well, one thing is that big investors, such as hedge funds, never lose. As soon as they sniff failure of a company, they lay bets on that failure and collect if they are right. Other “investors” seeing these bets also bet on failure.
Cream off profits, increase directors’ pay when things are going well, collect on bets when things go wrong and sometimes STILL increase director pay. And the state ends up picking up some, or all, of the losses.
Privatisation: as big as the sub- prime mortgage scandal but more secretive till the excrement hits the climate controller.
And here a couple of observations about the company from commentators on the article:
“Would love to see this company fold this is the best news I’ve heard all year. Having worked for this poorly managed company for 2 years from which I resigned because the management made life difficult this is music to my ears. Please remember this is also the company that operated the black book they kept a lot of good people on the dole because their faces didn’t fit. Hopefully They will be history very soon.”
and
“The FCA should look into this debacle. A company of almost 50,000 employees and annual revenue of £5bn does not suddenly sink like this without good reason. Many companies survive on slim margins in competitive industries. Senior managers must be held to account and for the umpteenth time …. what were the auditors doing?”
Don’t let (tax avoiding) Google influence your views
Google spends millions on academic research to influence opinion, says watchdog
“Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed.
Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report.
“Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. “At a minimum, regulators should be aware that the allegedly independent legal and academic work on which they rely has been brought to them by Google.”
In its Google Academics Inc report, the CfA identified 329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policy that the company had funded. Such studies have been authored by academics and economists from some of the world’s leading institutions including Oxford, Edinburgh, Stanford, Harvard, MIT and the Berlin School of Economics.
Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report.
The CfA is calling for Google-funded academics to disclose the source of their funding to ensure their work can be evaluated in context.
Google described the report as “highly misleading” as it included any work supported by any organisation to which it has ever donated money. …”
Tax avoidance:
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-03-31/google-accused-of-being-less-than-transparent-after-revealing-latest-uk-tax-payments/
Local authority companies ” should not have many council board members” – so why run the company?
Owl says: If councillors and officers are no good at running commercial companies – why are they being created?
“Local authority-run companies should avoid having too many council members on executive boards to ensure commercial success, CIPFA’s annual conference was told.
The advice on governance was issued today by Mike Britch, chief executive of Norse Group, a firm with a £300m turnover wholly owned by Norfolk County Council, at a workshop on councils and commercialism.
He told delegates the presence of too many members on executive boards could hamper the agility that a small and focused board needed to efficiently deliver services in a commercial environment.
Britch said: “You can’t run a commercial service as a department of a local authority, that means you have to get yourself from under the shackles of a 151 [financial] officer, the monitoring officer and everybody else who wants to reduce what they perceive as the risk to their shareholders.
“You need to have commercial and operational freedom to trade and to make the decisions you need to make.” …”
Crime czar Alison Hernandez does U-turn and puts deputy plan “on hold”
“Crime czar Alison Hernandez has bowed to pressure and abandoned a plan to appoint a Tory colleague from her local council days as her second-in-command. The Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner asked the police and crime panel to rubber stamp the appointment of fellow Conservative and Torbay councillor Mark Kingscote on Friday.
Ms Hernandez wanted the 55-year-old NHS support worker, who specialises in mental health, to help her with the workload on a £30,000 salary.
But, amid concerns over his qualifications for the role and controversy over a tweet referring to lesbians as “lesbos”, the the panel of councillors rejected the proposal.
Mr Kingscote’s tasteless tweet was covered here by EDW:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/07/08/the-police-and-crime-panel-and-that-tweet/
The hearing heard how the attempted appointment “smacked of nepotism”.
After a private meeting, the panel concluded that Kingscote – a staunch Conservative who once chained himself to a set of railings to protest about the downfall of his hero, Margaret Thatcher, “does not meet minimum requirements of the post”.
The ruling capped a bruising week for Ms Hernandez, in which a council voted she should be removed from her role for making “stupid and dangerous” comments about guns.
Plymouth City Council’s Labour group tabled a vote of no confidence in Alison Hernandez, saying they are “extremely alarmed” at her stance on how to tackle terrorists.
Ms Hernandez was not bound by the panel’s decision, which was revealed to the commissioner in a letter received yesterday.
However, she risked making enemies of a group which is constituted to oversee her work, placing her a loggerheads for the final three years of her tenure.
In a statement released today, Ms Hernandez accepted the decision and said she “has put plans to appoint a deputy on hold”.
“I am disappointed that the Panel did not feel able to support my choice of deputy but I am willing to accept its recommendation,” she said. “I will now spend some time contemplating my next move and will await the appointment of a new chief executive before making a decision.”
“I would like to thank Mark Kingscote for being willing to consider taking on this challenge on behalf of the people of Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and I believe he would have served the people of our counties and islands well.”
Read Alison Hernandez’s letter to the panel:
Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner Confirmation Hearing Report
Thank you for your letter of 11th July following the confirmation hearing on 7th July.
I am disappointed that the Panel does not feel able to support my choice of deputy. However, while I feel there are some misunderstandings around both the role, and the process of appointment, I reluctantly accept the recommendation and will not be appointing Mark Kingscote as my deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.
The Panel represents our communities across Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of
Scilly and I absolutely respect the views of its members but, if you will allow me, I think it would be helpful to respond to the points raised about Mark Kingscote’s suitability.
In relation to estates, I require someone who can assist with the strategic overview of the planning and investment part of the process not the day to day maintenance. So while I can see that you may doubt his track record in estate management, I did feel Mark had the necessary experience in estate development as he has successfully steered multi-million pound planning applications.
On the second point Mark has apologised for his poor choice of words while using Twitter. Please be assured he did not mean to insult, offend or be discriminatory and he is sad that he was unable to convince the Panel of this.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I must address your point about working councillors. I am determined to encourage more working people to become elected councillors so that our communities can be better represented. Elected roles cannot only be for the retired, unemployed or wealthy. I myself worked after being elected and I strongly believe that Mark would have been able to serve both Torbay residents and the wider population of Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly well.
I will now spend some time contemplating my next move and will await the
appointment of a new chief executive before making a decision.
I look forward to seeing you in August at confirmation hearings for both the new Treasurer and CEO. Thank you for finding the time in your diary to enable this to happen outside of the normal schedule of meetings.
Yours sincerely
Alison Hernandez
Police and Crime Commissioner
Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly”
South West Water “in special measures” due to pollution incidents
The Environment Agency is introducing special measures for South West Water until it better protects the environment.
It comes after the firm came significantly below its targets for pollution incidents, the EA said.
The supplier must improve its performance according to a “Water and sewerage companies’ performance” report.
The EA says that last year the company was responsible for 115 major pollution incidents (including serious sewage leaks) – the next highest number from a supplier was 46.
The agency has ranked South West Water’s performance as significantly below target.
The Environment Agency also gave the company a two-star rating, meaning that it requires improvement.
An EA spokesman said: “We expect South West Water to make significant improvements to their environmental performance.
“They have not done enough to reduce pollution incidents and have repeatedly scored badly on this metric compared with other companies.”
South West Water said: “We continue to invest and innovate – for example, through using cutting-edge technology to monitor our sewerage network, and purchasing a fleet of fully-equipped rapid response vehicles to enable staff to undertake sewer cleansing, surveying and reporting in one visit.
“This will help our response times and management of pollution incidents as we seek to drive numbers down.”
Sidmouth Port Royal plans – improvement or defacement?
From Save our Sidmouth:
“Sidmouth seafront: improved or defaced by councils’ Port Royal plans? NOW is the time to make your views known
East Devon District Council (EDDC) and Sidmouth Town Council (STC) have progressed their joint Port Royal Scoping Study, to produce a single option for public consultation. As suggested in our most recent posts, the redevelopment proposed has caused controversy, with heavy criticism on planning grounds and on unsuitability. Various letters to the press have been copied to SOS, and will be posted on this website, for your information.
Two new web pages describe the situation, and include thought-provoking photomontages:
http://drillhall.rescue.historic-sidmouth.uk/port-royal-regeneration-consultation
and
http://drillhall.rescue.historic-sidmouth.uk/port-royal-regeneration-consultation-photomontages
Local resident, Mary Walden-Thill, warns, ”The first meeting of Sidmouth Town Council after the Survey closes, is on the 14th of August. It is very likely that they will make their decision on the redevelopment at this meeting. Once the decision is made the ‘gateway’ closes and it will be extremely difficult to reconsider, it may even require a legal appeal.” (
The Terms are very clear … see:
http://drillhall.rescue.historic-sidmouth.uk/scoping-exercise
Many agree with her that there seems ”no reason why the area could not be improved without resorting to a huge block containing apartments”, and are questioning why the consultation only offers one option.
NOW is the time to let your Councillor representative(s) know your views, by
a.contacting them directly . STC contact details from the council website are listed below, for your convenience.
and
b. completing the brief public consultation survey still open online until 5pm on 31st July 2017, at this link
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/port-royal-consultation/
Sidmouth Town Councillors
Chairman IAN MCKENZIE-EDWARDS, Sidford Ward, ijsmck_ed@hotmail.co.uk
Deputy Chairman John Dyson, South Ward, jdyson@eastdevon.gov.uk
Ian Barlow, Salcombe Regis Ward, wootans@aol.com
David Barratt, Salcombe Regis Ward, davidbarratt@btinternet.com
Sheila Kerridge, West Ward, martin.kerridge@btinternet.com
Jack Brokenshire, Sidford Ward, patandjack42@hotmail.co.uk
Louise Cole, West Ward, louisecolesidmouthtowncouncil@outlook.com
Kelvin Dent, South Ward, kelvinrdent@gmail.com
Michael Earthey, North Ward, michael.earthey@tesco.net
John Hollick, Sidbury Ward, john.hollick@uwclub.net
Stuart Hughes, North Ward, stuart.hughes@devon.gov.uk
Gareth Jones, Sidbury Ward, tgjones46@gmail.com
Marc Kilsbie, East Ward, marc-sidmouthtc@hotmail.com
Dawn Manley, North Ward, dawn.manleytownc@gmail.com
Frances Newth, East Ward, fnewth@icloud.com
Simon Pollentine, Primley Ward, simon_sheelagh_simon@tiscali.co.uk
John Rayson, West Ward, johnwrayson@btinternet.com
Jeff Turner, Primley Ward, jeffreyturner391@btinternet.com
Paul Wright, South Ward, paul_wright_sidmouth_town_council@hotmail.com
Estate agent boss slams government housing policy
“… Paul Smith, chief executive of Haart estate agents, said: “Affordability is clearly reaching a critical juncture as the average loan size increases whilst the average income decreases. Although rising first-time buyer borrowing demonstrates the appetite for home ownership in the UK, young people should not be left to stretch beyond their means, and government should intervene with a tax break as a quick and straight-forward way to help them get onto the ladder.
“Theresa May’s legacy on home ownership has so far been a disaster. The ‘just about managing’ are further away from owning their own home than they ever have been, and the government’s feeble housing white paper did not go anywhere near enough to get housebuilders building and the market moving.”
http://www.cityam.com/268307/theresa-may-slammed-disastrous-action-home-ownership-estate
Barratt: 12% rise in profits yet only 76 more homes sold!
“Britain’s largest builder Barratt posted a better-than-expected 12 percent rise in 2016/17 profit as selling prices rose but it only built 76 more homes than its previous financial year, despite government efforts to tackle a chronic shortage.
Britain needs to deliver up to double the roughly 200,000 new properties arriving on the market each year just to keep up with demand, which has pushed up prices and rent, stopping many younger people from getting onto the property ladder.
Barratt, which built 17,395 homes in the 12 months to the end of June and posted pretax profit of 765 million pounds ($982 million), has previously said it wanted to focus on quality, with rivals such Bovis being criticised for poor workmanship.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-boe-broadbent-idUKKBN19X0IG
Er, “quality” – don’t they mean “eye-wateringly expensive”?
“Watchdog concern over “inherently complex” structures of combined authorities”
“The introduction of combined authorities has meant that inherently complex structures have been added to England’s already complicated local government arrangements, the National Audit Office has said.
The evidence that investment, decision-making and oversight at this sub national level was linked to improved local economic outcomes was “mixed and inconclusive”, it added.
In a report, Progress in setting up combined authorities, the watchdog did acknowledge that the Department for Communities and Local Government had worked “speedily” to make sure combined authority areas were ready for the mayoral elections in May 2017.
It also accepted that there “is a logic to establishing strategic bodies designed to function across conurbations and sub-regional areas, and there is a clear purpose to establishing combined authorities especially in metropolitan areas, as economies and transport networks operate at a scale greater than individual local authority areas.”
The report also found:
There was a risk that local councillors would have limited capacity for the overview and scrutiny of combined authorities.
In May 2017, six mayors were elected to combined authorities in England, with candidates having campaigned on manifestos which frequently made policy commitments beyond the current remits of these organisations. “This raises the question of whether mayors can be credible local advocates if they only deal with the limited issues under the remit.”
Combined authorities were not uniform, and varied in the extent of the devolution deals they had struck with government.
If the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union resulted in reductions in regional funding, the economic regeneration role of combined authorities would become more pressing. “Combined authorities are generally in areas which receive the most EU funding,” the NAO noted.
The NAO highlighted how a number of authorities had been unable to bring local authorities together to establish combined authorities, while areas with a long history of working together had often found it most straightforward to establish combined authorities.
“The capacity of most combined authorities is currently limited and the lack of geographical coherence between most combined authorities and other providers of public services could make it more problematic to devolve more public services in the future,” the watchdog warned.
The NAO’s recommendations were:
The DCLG should:
(a) continue to support combined authorities as they put in place their individual local plans for assessing their impact, including demonstrating the value they add;
(b) review periodically all frameworks and guidance in place for combined authorities and other bodies with joint responsibilities, to ensure that accountability for the delivery of services is clear to stakeholders in local communities; and
(c) continue to work with combined authorities as they develop sufficient capacity to:
deliver the functions agreed in the devolution deals;
support economic growth and the government’s industrial strategy; and
provide sufficient scrutiny and oversight to their activities.
Combined authorities should:
(d) work with the DCLG to develop their plans for assessing their impact, including demonstrating the value they add; and
(e) develop and maintain relationships with key stakeholders in delivering economic growth and public services in their areas.
Areas planning to establish combined authorities should:
(f) make sure they have and can clearly articulate a common purpose;
(g) form an area with a clear economic rationale, mindful of existing administrative boundaries; and
(h) develop relationships across areas where there is no history of joint working.
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: “For combined authorities to deliver real progress and not just be another ‘curiosity of history’ like other regional structures before them, they will need to demonstrate that they can both drive economic growth and also contribute to public sector reform.”
East Devon Watch 