“Fears of Exeter housing crisis as figures reveal population growth outstripping new homes”

And what starts in Exeter ripples immediately to East Devon – where the western side is now just another “Greater Exeter” suburb.

“Exeter would need to build houses more than twice as fast if it wanted to keep up with population growth.

The number of homes being built in the area actually dropped last year, the latest figures show – and housing is growing at a far slower
rate than the booming population.

… Government data reveals 450 homes were built in Exeter in 2016-17 – down from 651 the year before – bringing the total number of houses and flats to around 53,930.

That works out as a growth in Exeter housing of 0.84 per cent in the last year.

In comparison, the population of the area grew by nearly 2,500 people between mid-2015 and mid-2016 – the latest data available.

It means only one new home is being built for every six extra people in the area.

Population growth in Exeter is fuelled by both ‘natural’ factors – more births than deaths – as well as immigration from other parts of
the UK and abroad.

Thanks to this there are now nearly 130,000 people living in Exeter – a growth of 1.96 per cent in a single year.

It means the population in the area is growing more than twice as fast as homes are being built – one of the worst discrepancies seen in the
whole of England.

Across the country, rates of house building have actually overtaken total population growth in the last year, with the number of homes in
England increasing by more than 217,000 in 2016-17.

That brings the total number of dwellings in the country to around 24 million – up by 0.92 per cent on the year before. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/fears-exeter-housing-crisis-figures-811954

Hinkley Point – the case against grows stronger – part 2

MOwl’s view: meanwhile, all those board members (and former board members) of our LEP with nuclear interests are very happy – those providing the roads to the site, those building houses near the site, those recruiting staff for the site, those building new facilities for site workers and extending their colleges and universities on the back of nuclear training courses they will run. It really doesn’t matter if it is a Somerset white elephant.

AND they are using OUR money for this.

”The government has saddled families with inflated household bills for decades because of the poor deal it negotiated over the Hinkley Point nuclear plant in Somerset, MPs have said.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) criticised a contract awarded to EDF to build the first new nuclear station in Britain since 1995 as too expensive, with the burden falling most heavily on poorer households.

Meg Hillier, the committee’s chairwoman, accused the government of “grave strategic errors” in crafting the deal, which will leave consumers paying £30 billion in subsidies over 35 years — five times more than expected.

“Bill-payers have been dealt a bad hand by the government in its approach to this project,” she said. “Its blinkered determination to agree the Hinkley deal, regardless of changing circumstances, means that for years to come energy consumers will face costs running to many times the original estimate.”

The government signed a preliminary deal in 2013 with EDF, the French state-owned nuclear generator, to pay a fixed price of £92.50 per megawatt hour for the electricity produced by the Hinkley station for 35 years, indexed to inflation. The costs are to be met via a levy on consumer bills once the station enters service, expected to add £10 to £15 a year to the average household bill.

But when wholesale energy prices plunged sharply in 2014, amid growing doubts over the French reactor technology earmarked for use at Hinkley, following delays and cost overruns at other plants, the government failed to revisit the terms.

The PAC accused ministers of pressing ahead and locking consumers into an expensive deal.

“The economics of nuclear power in the UK have deteriorated since the government last formally considered its strategic case for nuclear in 2008,” the report said. “Estimated construction costs have increased while alternative low-carbon technologies have become cheaper. At the same time, fossil-fuel price projections have fallen.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said that it was a “competitive deal”.

EDF Energy said: “The cost of Hinkley Point C for customers has not changed and they will pay nothing for its reliable, low carbon electricity until the station is completed . . . Construction is fully under way and is already delivering a huge benefit to British jobs, skills and industrial strategy.”

Hannah Martin, head of energy at Greenpeace UK, said the PAC report showed that the government should revisit the project because it “makes absolutely no financial sense”.

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Hinkley Point – the case against grows stronger – part 1

See part 2 (above) for Owl’s cynical view. Things MUST be bad if The Times and The Guardian agree!

MPs have accused the government of failing to protect consumers over the price it has promised to pay for power from the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant.

The Commons public accounts committee said the subsidy contract for Hinkley Point C, agreed in 2016 after years of delays, would hit poorest households hardest.

The power station is expected to cost billpayers £30bn over the lengthy of the 35-year contract, adding £10-£15 to the average household energy bill.

Hinkley nuclear site radioactive mud to be dumped near Cardiff
But an assessment by the committee concluded that no one in Whitehall was championing consumers’ interests during negotiations with French company EDF Energy.

The final bill for consumers was exacerbated by government not renegotiating the guaranteed power price for fear that EDF and its Chinese partner CGN would walk away from the project, which the MPs said was a questionable assumption.

Officials agreed a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour in 2013 but fossil fuel price projections fell between then and the contract being signed in 2016, pushing the cost to consumers up fivefold from £6bn to £30bn.

At the time the Department of Energy and Climate Change – now the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – did not consider a ceiling on the guaranteed price, the MPs were told.

Meg Hillier, chair of the group of MPs, said: “Billpayers have been dealt a bad hand by the government in its approach to this project.”

The criticism from the committee follows a damning report by the UK’s spending watchdog, the NAO, which found the contract for Hinkley had locked consumers into a “risky and expensive project”.

The NAO attacked the government for failing to explore alternative financing models, such as taking stake in the project, a criticism that the MPs echoed.

The public accounts committee said it was also disappointed that the government appeared to have no plan in place to maximise the wider benefits of the project, beyond the clean power it will provide.

“The department does not know to what extent UK workers and companies will benefit from Hinkley Point C and the wider follow-on new nuclear programme, and has no plan in place to show how it will maximise the wider benefits of the project,” the report said.

A BEIS spokeswoman said: “The government negotiated a competitive deal for the construction of the first new nuclear power station in a generation as part of our energy mix, which ensures consumers won’t pay a penny for any construction overruns and until the station generates electricity in 2025.”

The MPs urged the government to publish a plan B for keeping the lights on, in the event the power station does not come online in 2025 as planned. EDF has already warned that the plant could be completed 15 months late.

French, Japanese and Chinese developers hope to secure financial incentives from the UK to build other new nuclear power plants, but the MPs said the government should re-evaluate the strategic case before going ahead with more projects.

“The government made some grave strategic errors here and must now explain what it will do to ensure these are not repeated,” said Hillier of the Hinkley contract.

EDF defended the deal and said Hinkley would help cut costs for other future nuclear power stations, such as the one it hopes to build at Sizewell in Suffolk.

A spokesman said: “The agreed price is lower than 80% of other low carbon capacity contracted so far and the project has restarted UK nuclear construction after a quarter century. Construction is fully under way and is already delivering a huge benefit to British jobs, skills and industrial strategy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/22/hinkley-point-c-subsidy-consumers-mps-contract

Housing: too many loopholes, too many abuses

A Sidmouth resident writes:

“The Prime Minister has said it is her a personal mission to mend our broken housing market and provide much-needed “affordable” housing, even though much of this is, for many, unaffordable.

We hope therefore that she will immediately address loopholes in the planning system that are regularly exploited by developers who avoid making a fair contribution to affordable housing, for example by claiming, after they have obtained planning permission, that such housing is financially unviable.

Developers who build retirement flats often claim these are “care Homes”, even though they provide no care themselves. In Sidmouth, for instance, PegasusLife is currently appealing a decision to refuse a multi-million pound development of 113 expensive retirement flats and exploiting an ambiguity in planning law as well as using a viability test to avoid paying an estimated £3 million towards affordable housing, housing money that cash-strapped Councils can ill afford to lose.

It is a myth that the country needs more houses: it doesn’t need more expensive houses, investment properties and second homes. What it needs are low-cost houses, houses for social rent and houses to buy within the reach of lower and average income earners.

Will Mrs May tighten up planning law to stamp out such abuses or are we to conclude that the private sector, as hitherto, cannot be trusted to provide low-cost and “affordable” homes?”

The budget: well, at least Hammond will be ok

“… Hammond is one of Parliament’s richest MPs with a net worth estimated at £8.2million in 2014.

He made much of his money after setting up housing and nursing home developer Castlemead in 1984.

He still benefits from a trust that controls the firm, alongside his £143,000 salary for being a minister and MP.

But he refused point-blank to publish his tax return – leaving it difficult to estimate what he’s worth now. …”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/who-philip-hammond-what-net-11560679

“Flagship government housing plan fails to deliver a single home in three years”

Another one of those Tory “funds” (this one supposedly £2.3 billion) that achieved NOTHING.

Question: Where DID the money go?

“A flagship government programme to deliver 200,000 discounted new homes to first-time buyers is yet to see a single one built.

The 2014 Starter Home initiative was touted as part of “a major push” to help people on the housing ladder, but officials admit delivering any properties under the scheme remains an “ambition”.

It promised to achieve its target by pushing councils and developers to bring forward unused land and build on old industrial sites, measures that Chancellor Philip Hammond will again pledge to carry out as he makes housing a key plank of his Budget on Wednesday.

The Starter Home initiative’s lack of concrete progress also comes as Labour claimed Conservative spending plans since 2010 have stripped some £20bn out of UK housebuilding projects, robbing the country of an extra 280,000 homes.

It was just before Christmas three years ago that David Cameron announced the Starter Home project, promising to build 100,000 properties and offer them to young people at a 20 per cent discount.

At the Autumn Statement in 2015, then-Chancellor George Osborne said a £2.3bn fund would help boost the number to 200,000, “in addition to those delivered through reform of the planning system”.

None have been built despite officials in 2014 saying work would begin on the homes the following year.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/housing-starter-homes-budget-philip-hammond-a8066571.html

South West Ambulance service employees: open letter to public

An apology from Ambulance staff to our families, friends and the community:
Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes when you see an ambulance attending an incident what it might be like to work for the South Western Ambulance service?

Although we love what we do, behind the professional facade we portray to the public we are struggling to maintain a crumbling service deliberately being underfunded by the Government and made worse when those over pressured resources and stressed staff are then badly managed locally.

If you’re unfortunate enough to have to call us, please remember that although we will potentially often be the Deliverer of the First High Quality Care you receive in an accident or illness, we are not only not classified as an Emergency Service by the government but not appreciated or cared for by our employer.

We, as ambulance professionals, are trying to change that. Our Union, GMB, are trying to change that, but our employer and our Chief Executive are ignoring both our complaints and calls for change, so in order to explain to our families, friends and the public and even our employer SWAST we send out our heartfelt apologies:

TO THE PUBLIC:

We’re sorry for not getting to you or your loved ones quick enough because there are just not enough of us or we are called out to answer non-emergency calls.
We’re sorry for the patient and family members that have been left on the floor for hours as a consequence of not getting to you on time.
We’re sorry when you remain in the ambulance or in the hospital corridor for hours when we are stacked at A&E’s because we can’t complete our hand over.
We’re sorry that our employer is so poor in managing their resources that they are potentially putting your family at risk.
We’re sorry you sometimes feel the need to verbally abuse or physically threaten us while we treat your family and friends.
We’re sorry it appears that SWAST deployments and performance targets are more important than patient care.
We’re sorry if we arrive at your emergency at the end of a 12 hour shift and possible overrun if we are so tired we potentially fear making a wrong clinical decision.

TO OUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS:

We’re sorry for not being able to be there when you as family and friends need us.
We’re sorry for missing yet another family occasion.
We’re sorry we are refused annual leave when we want it meaning no family holiday once again.
We’re sorry yet another overrun has meant we are late home again.
We’re sorry kids that we couldn’t tuck you in and read you a story at bedtime.
We’re sorry for being so tired or stressed when we do finally get home.
We’re sorry for the occasions you’ll see us angry, frustrated, unhappy and sad.
We’re sorry when we witness yet another colleague’s relationship fail.
TO SWAST:
We’re sorry for feeling unsupported by you, our employer.
We’re sorry when we are stretched ever more thinly across a greater area of deployment that we don’t hit your targets for reaching critically ill patients in time.
We’re sorry for being sick in an environment and workplace that doesn’t allow it.
We’re sorry for what must be our annoying constant requests for annual leave and you having to take the time to respond and refuse them.
We’re sorry for our claims of PTSD.
We’re sorry for appearing ungrateful that your recent rota review has in fact destroyed our work life balance even more beyond acceptable limits.
We’re sorry for the inconvenience when injuries at work happen.
We’re sorry if we appear concerned that we will not reach retirement age as a result of physical or psychological injury.
We’re sorry for not agreeing with the Chief Executive, and his teams ‘my way or the highway’ attitude towards us as staff.

And finally in closing:

We’re sorry for saying sorry, time and time again to all of you because nothing ever changes.
We’re sorry for having to write this.
We’re sorry for asking, but it’s time for everyone to support our call for the Chief Executive to stand down.”

When is government funding not government funding?

… When you announce a fund of £1.7 billion and, in the same press release, announce that you have only agreed to spend £250 million!

“… The Transforming Cities fund aims to improve connectivity, reduce congestion and bring in new technology to create high-quality jobs and spread wealth around the country.

Some £250m has already been allocated to the West Midlands. …”

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-reveals-16317bn-transport-boost-ahead-of-budget-11135211

Seaside towns: “old-fashioned, “closed off” in winter, difficult to get to

”A report into Britain’s seaside towns says there are still perceptions of them as old-fashioned, closed in the winter and difficult to get to.

The conclusions come from the all-party Parliamentary Group for the Visitor Economy, chaired by St Austell and Newquay Conservative MP, Steve Double.

The group has been looking at how the seaside economy could continue to thrive if and when European funding is withdrawn once the UK has left the EU.

They’ve come up with a list or recommendations which include reducing VAT on tourist accommodation and attractions to 5%, introducing more frequent bus services, and reducing the aggressive behaviour of seagulls in some resorts which have been putting visitors off.

Mr Double said the British coastline was a national asset with great potential and which, with the right investment, could drive regeneration, economic growth and job creation.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-41983530

“Rural public services funding ‘outdated and chronically unfair’ “

“Funding for public services in rural communities is “outdated and chronically unfair” when compared to towns and cities, the County Councils Network has stated.

The body, which represents county councils, has demanded the government address the ‘postcode lottery’ of government funding.

It says there are large disparities between resources allocated to rural public services and their urban counterparts.

Paul Carter, chair of the CCN, will tell the network’s annual conference today that 26 million countryside residents receive almost 50% less funding for their public services compared to their neighbours in England’s largest cities.

“Our services are threatened and under pressure like never before.

“Unless these inequalities are addressed, many of the highly valued services to our public will diminish or disappear,” he warned.

Carter highlighted that this year, collectively, England’s 37 county areas received £3.2bn less than the English average, including London and towns and cities outside rural areas.

He added: “This impacts on the daily lives on our residents, all whilst they unfairly subsidise services enjoyed in other parts of the country through higher council tax bills.

“This is outdated and chronically unfair.”

The inequality in the current system means that, on average, county councils received £650 per person for public services in 2017-18 however a city or metropolitan borough resident receives £825 for their services, whilst those in inner London enjoy £1,190 per person, the CCN said.

This gulf in funding received by different communities comes at a time when county authorities face a funding black hole of £2.54bn by 2021, caused by austerity and these funding inequalities between rural and urban areas, according to the CCN.

Carter is also expected to warn that the government’s review of local government finance will not resolve historical inequalities, and is likely to “fudge” the issue.

The CCN noted that these historical quirks mean a rural taxpayer in Leicestershire gets £428 per person for their public services, but those living, in some cases, less than a mile away in Leicester, a unitary city council, get £1,107 per person for their services – 61% more.

County leaders say they have little choice but to raise council tax to make sure the shortfall, meaning that their residents are unfairly subsidising the services enjoyed in other parts of the country.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/11/rural-public-services-funding-outdated-and-chronically-unfair

LEP take note: productivity is going to be measured very differently from now on

Our LEP has an open meeting on its “productivity strategy” tomorrow at 11 am at

Regency Suite, Devon Hotel
Exeter EX2 8XU

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/11/18/lep-needs-help-on-productivity-strategy-public-meeting-21-november-11am-exeter/

However, it may find itself in some difficulty as the way productivity is measured will change drastically next month when, instead of measuring productivity only in large firms, for the first time 600,000 businesses employing less than 100 people will be included. Our LEP has not based its strategy on these new measurements.

The Office for National Statistics is overhauling the way in which it measures the UK economy by including vast amounts of VAT data from small firms for the first time.

Previously, GDP estimates have been generated from a survey of the turnover at 45,000 companies – including all of the country’s largest businesses.

From December, information from a third of the UK’s 1.8m VAT returns will also be added to turnover data and included in official GDP figures.

This will dramatically change how the country’s economic growth is measured, providing far more insight into specific industries and locations. The greater proportion of VAT returns will also encompass more small companies, which make up 98pc of UK businesses.

For instance, in past GDP estimates, sectors such as restaurants and pubs were reported on, but only at a high level of “food and beverage service activities” based on 172 monthly surveys and 28,000 tax returns.

Having access to much more data will allow for a detailed view on the performance of pubs, takeaways and restaurants in different parts of the country, the ONS said.

For this first new estimate, only VAT returns from small and medium firms with headcounts of 100 or fewer will be included. Surveys of large firms will continue to be part of the ONS’s data gathering and reporting.

While smaller firms account for most of UK businesses, they only constitute 20pc of the economy. That means the data gathered and analysed by the ONS will be more detailed, but the impact on the GDP headline figure might not be altered by its inclusion, as larger company responses have greater sway.

Economist John Hawksworth of PwC said that it would be good if the ONS published “GDP estimates with and without use of the new VAT data”, so users could clearly see the difference made by its inclusion.

“It should also allow a more timely and detailed breakdown of economic activity by industry sub-sector and region to be produced than is possible at present,” Mr Hawksworth said.

Nick Vaughan, chief economist for the ONS, said the process of incorporating the additional data would be gradual.

“We are phasing these data in gradually and will ramp up the number of VAT returns we use over the coming years,” he said. He added that the new approach should lessen the administrative burden on small firms of completing surveys and help cut costs at the ONS.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/20/uk-use-small-firms-vat-returns-calculate-economic-growth/

Save Our Hospital Services (SOHS) ‘Care Closer to Home’ survey now online

The survey has been designed with input from a large number of people, including several healthcare professionals. Our aim is to gather as much data on the Care Closer to Home model as possible. We want to know how the model is working based on the real-life experiences of the people of Devon.

The survey can be completed as the patient or as the spouse/partner/relative/friend of the patient.”

https://surveys.sohs.org.uk

“One in seven councillors in English rental hotspots are landlords” – including Torbay

Freedom of Information request to EDDC anyone? To include councillors spouses and children, of course!

“In Torbay, 39% of councillors own multiple properties, including one who has received more than £63,000 in housing benefit payments for tenants in the last two years.

Three Conservative councillors in the south coast authority, including the mayor, own a combined 68 residential properties. In Bournemouth, 15 of the 37 councillors hold multiple property interests; in Labour-controlled Leeds, 26 of the 99 councillors own more than one property in the city.

Councils have the power to regulate private landlords with licensing schemes that enforce minimum levels of safety and habitability, particularly in the poorest areas with large numbers of rental homes. None of these three authorities, which have the largest proportions of landlord councillors, have introduced such schemes.

“It is worrying that towns and cities with high numbers of private renters are governed by a disproportionately high number of landlords, especially if it makes councils less inclined to regulate the local rental market properly,” said Dan Wilson Craw, director of the pressure group Generation Rent.

He said landlord licensing could make a significant difference. For example, the London borough of Newham’s licensing scheme accounts for 70% of all housing prosecutions in the capital.

Landlord councillors insist there is no conflict of interest and say a lack of resources and a belief that the schemes are not the most effective form of regulation influence the decisions. Others have said licensing is under consideration. …

… Torbay council has admitted that the age and quality of the housing stock “means that it is poorly insulated, generally inefficient, which leads to poor living conditions and fuel poverty”. It has also said it may consider licensing landlords in certain areas to increase control over the quality of private sector homes, but has yet to do so.

Six of its councillors rent out 19 properties in two of the most deprived wards. James O’Dwyer, who sits on several council committees, is also a property manager and landlord, and eight of the 44 houses and flats in which he and his family have an interest are located in two wards – Tormohun and Roundham with Hyde – that are ranked in the bottom 10% of living environments in England, according to the government’s indices of deprivation.

Since 2015, O’Dwyer has received more than £63,000 in housing benefit payments for his tenants, according to figures released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

O’Dwyer said budget cuts rather than the influence of councillor landlords was more likely to be the reason for the failure to introduce licensing schemes in his area.

“This lack of resources and the burden of bureaucracy is far more likely to be the cause of any stagnation of a licensing scheme than the Machiavellian cabal of landlords targeting Torbay,” he said.

O’Dwyer said he would support the right kind of scheme in Torbay and stressed that any conflicts of interest were dealt with under council rules.

His fellow councillor Ray Hill rents out five homes in Tormohun as part of a portfolio of 19 residential properties that he owns or leases. Hill said he and his wife were “responsible and attentive landlords”.

“All of the 19 flats owned by my wife and myself in Torquay and elsewhere are of a high standard, some furnished and some unfurnished,” he said.

A Torbay council spoke4sperson said the authority had invested in an enforcement team rather than licensing, which had resulted in prosecutions changing the behaviour of bad landlords.

“This has had an impact bay-wide rather than in a specific identified area,” they said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/20/one-in-seven-councillors-in-english-rental-hotspots-are-landlords

“Electoral Commission launches inquiry into leave campaign funding”

”Watchdog has ‘reasonable grounds to suspect offence was committed’ by Vote Leave, a student campaigner and another Eurosceptic group.

The watchdog will investigate whether Vote Leave, which was the officially designated Brexit campaign during the referendum, broke campaign finance rules.

Bob Posner, the commission’s director of political finance and regulation, said there were legitimate questions over the funding of campaigners which “risks causing harm to voters’ confidence in the referendum”.

The campaign, run by political strategist Matthew Elliott and former special adviser Dominic Cummings, will be investigated alongside Veterans for Britain and student activist Darren Grimes, now the deputy editor of the Brexit Central website, where Elliott is now editor-at-large.

The investigation has been opened after a review of previous assessments that the Electoral Commission conducted in February and March 2017, where it initially decided no further action was needed.

The commission said new information had since come to light which meant it had “reasonable grounds to suspect an offence may have been committed”.

Grimes and Veterans for Britain will be investigated as to whether he delivered an incorrect spending return in relation to a donation they received from Vote Leave and related campaign spending.

Vote Leave’s spending return will also be investigated, as well as whether the campaign breached its spending limit.

“There is significant public interest in being satisfied that the facts are known about Vote Leave’s spending on the campaign, particularly as it was a lead campaigner with a greater spending limit than any other campaigners on the ‘leave’ side,” Posner said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/20/electoral-commission-launches-inquiry-into-leave-campaign-funding

Housing: Hammond blames … well, it’s not clear

“… Hammond stated: “It is not acceptable to us [government] that so many fewer young Britons are able to own a home now than just 10 or 15 years ago. It is not acceptable to us that there are not enough properties to rent and that rents are sky high, and the answer is that we have to build more homes.” …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/11/hammond-pledges-action-housebuilding

Conservatives have been in control of housebuilding since 2010 – seven of those “10-15 years” Hammond talks about.

One of the first acts of the coalition was to put the major housebuilders in charge of re-writing planning policies. Their wishes became law in the National Planning Policy Framework – which people dubbed a “Developers’ Charter’ – and that continues to be the policy.

They also created “Help to Buy” for houses up to £600,000 – effectively handing subsidies to those same developers.

Sunday Telegraph: “Tory manifesto pledge on broadband not-spots at risk”

“A broadband upgrade for 1.4 million rural homes is expected to be delayed by as much as three years with talks on a deal between the Government and BT’s network subsidiary Openreach close to collapse. …

… the Government will be forced to impose new regulations to give broadband customers a right to an upgrade. It means the work is likely to take much longer and that a Tory manifesto pledge to deliver the minimum standard to everyone by 2020 is under threat. …”

Source: Sunday Telegraph

DCC, EDDC, Scrutiny, broadband and East Devon Alliance: not a good mix!

The Department for Communities and Local Government Parliamentary Committee asked for evidence on local authority scrutiny.

This interesting evidence was provided by BR4DS – a campaign group which is attempting to ensure that all parts of Devon and Somerset get fast broadband provision:

Written evidence submitted by B4RDS Broadband for Rural Devon and Somerset [OSG 006]

1. Executive summary:

1.1 At the first public meeting of a newly appointed Devon County Council (DCC) Scrutiny Committee in June 2017, the newly appointed Chairman delegated scrutiny of the Connecting Devon & Somerset (CDS) superfast broadband programme to an ongoing/standing task group of four Councillors who take evidence from Council Officers, suppliers and others in private, behind closed doors, with press and public excluded and with no formal minutes taken. This follows two years during which the previous committee required CDS to provide a quarterly written report on progress and answer questions in public, in front of the Committee.

The Terms of Reference for the ongoing/standing Task Group allow for it to continue in operation for seven years and the only information that will be put in the public domain will be reports by the four Councillors on their scrutiny of this subject. This is a major reduction in openness and transparency for the taxpayers of Devon and is contrary to the Council’s own constitution, the Nolan Principles and the expectations of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government as expressed at the 2017 Local Government Association Conference:

“If people are going to trust their elected representatives, they have to see them working in the harsh light of the public eye, not in comforting shadows behind closed doors. Not only must democracy exist; it must be seen to exist. It can’t be about decisions made in private meeting rooms.” – Rt Hon. Sajid Javid MP.”

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communities-and-local-government-committee/overview-and-scrutiny-in-local-government/written/70794.html

The East Devon Alliance also provided information to this committee which can be found here:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry6/publications/

Its executive summary states:

Written evidence submitted by East Devon Alliance [OSG 040]

Executive Summary

East Devon Alliance understands that encouraging economic development is a crucial task in local government. However, we are concerned that the increasing influence of unaccountable business interests on council decisions damages the health of local democracy, and can threaten the wider interests of local communities. The climate of unhealthy cynicism about politics, and a failure to engage in the democratic process, is reinforced whenever there is an apparent failure of scrutiny to make councils transparent and accountable.

Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) can too easily be rendered ineffectual by a dominant majority party in a cabinet-led-executive.

Government advice that members of a majority party should not chair O&S committees must be made mandatory.

Chief Executives must not be able to have inappropriate influence on O&S committees.

Scrutiny Officers need to be independent of influence and interference from senior officers or members of cabinet.

The scrutiny role needs to be strengthened to be able to call witnesses. It should be a legal requirement for officers and members of Council and associated bodies to cooperate.

With increasing privatisation, commercial confidentiality must not be used to shield public expenditure from scrutiny.

Scrutiny should “reflect the voice and concerns of the public” by giving local people more say in what issues are chosen for scrutiny.

There is no scrutiny mechanism of the new tier of local government created by the unelected and self-selecting Local Enterprise Partnerships who now control over £2 billion a year in England. Proposals made in 2013 by the Centre for Public Scrutiny could form the basis for scrutiny of such devolved bodies.”

“Help the Old”?

“In Britain we put our elderly into living graveyards, put them in a home, arrange the chairs in a half circle, turn on the heating and leave them to watch tv.

We should be copying what is happening in Amsterdam, where they have care homes with extra accommodation for students. The students get a free place to live in return for 30 hours a month assisting around the home.

For elderly people, the best medicine is youth. It energises them – ask any grandparent, We could kill two birds with one stone here, easing student debt and massive social care costs”.

Source: Sunday Times, pay wall