Privatisation: Virgin gaming the rail system – lising money, paying dividends

Virgin: leading the pack in health service privatisation.

“… The East Coast franchise was to be terminated three years early in 2020 under a controversial rail strategy announced by Grayling in November, potentially letting Virgin-Stagecoach off the hook for more than £1bn in promised payments to government. The announcement on Monday brought forward the termination of the current contract.

Virgin Trains East Coast admitted overbidding after it pledged to pay £3.3bn to run the service until 2023, with passenger numbers failing to rise in line with expectations. Cancelled infrastructure upgrades by Network Rail meant that a significant number of additional seats on new trains expected after 2020 would not be operating, making the government partially responsible.

However, Grayling risked stoking further anger on Monday by announcing that Virgin would be granted a further direct award, or contract without competition, to run the lucrative InterCity West Coast service, potentially until 2020. The Department for Transport had announced in 2016 that it was expecting to extend Virgin’s contract from this April for a further 12 months, until April 2019, before a new “West Coast Partnership” franchise was awarded, to include the introduction of HS2 high-speed trains from 2026.

Virgin has now retained the contract without competition since the proposed award of the franchise to rival First Group collapsed under a legal challenge in 2012. The west coast has consistently returned large dividends to Sir Richard Branson, who owns 51% of the joint venture, and to Stagecoach, which own 49%, topping £100m in the last two years alone.

Grayling’s announcement prompted fierce denunciation from Labour. Shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald said it was an insult to taxpayers: “What makes me want to weep is he’s giving more gifts to Richard Branson and [Stagecoach founder] Brian Souter. Let’s not forget that these are companies who extracted hundreds of millions of pounds in rigged compensation payments from taxpayers during the upgrade of the West Coast mainline … Similar tactics are now being deployed. Virgin games the system. It’s done it before and it’s doing it again.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/05/east-coast-could-return-to-public-sector-chris-grayling-admits

Oh no! EDDC pledges to become “more commercial” – HELP!

“East Devon District Council say they are taking a ‘more commercial approach to generate income’ as they tackle a predicted budget deficit of £735,000.

A Council Tax increase of £5 a year, giving a Band D council tax of £136.78 a year for 2018/19, is recommended for approval by the council’s cabinet committee when they meet on Wednesday night.

But Cllr Ian Thomas, the council’s portfolio holder for finance, said that as only 25 per cent of income is generated through council tax, they need to find alternative ways of raising money.

Cllr Paul Diviani, Leader of East Devon District Council, said: “The council is developing a more commercial approach to generate income for key council services but as we take our various ideas forward, consultation will be key – for example, consultations about various car parks and public toilets and consultations about other initiatives including how we can make our assets more commercial and income generating.” …

… Future reductions combined with other budgetary pressures mean that the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) is currently predicting a budget deficit of £0.735m in 2018/19, rising to £3m by 2020/21 and potentially to £5.4m by 2027/28. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/east-devon-become-more-commercial-1170128

Clinton Devon Estates: a very chequered development history

Comment added as post:

““Responsible stewardship and sustainable development are at the heart of everything we do.” So says Clinton Devon Estates web site. If only!

John F. Travis in his book “The Rise of the Devon Seaside Resorts” writes:

“The case of Exmouth serves to show that genteel landowners did not always ensure that resort development was of a superior quality. At Exmouth almost all the land was concentrated in the hands of the Rolle family,… but they tended to grant leases without exercising proper control over the subsequent development. In 1850 the Board of Health inspector castigated the Rolle family for not having concerned themselves with the “class or disposition of the houses erected” on their estate, with the result that properties were “chiefly of the second and third class . . . built without much attention to regularity and uniformity of design”….. In 1895 the Exmouth Urban District Council found it was powerless to prevent the spread of houses across Wythycombe Marsh, despite the fact that this low-lying area was frequently flooded and was contaminated by sewage.

Exmouth is an example of a resort where the landed proprietor failed to exercise proper control over development. Small developers were allowed to pursue their own interests without regard to the overall quality of the resort they were creating. The quality of development was generally inferior to that at Torquay, partly because there was less upper-class demand for housing at Exmouth, but chiefly because Exmouth lacked the large landowner’s personal involvement in the planning process which so characterized the development of Torquay. By 1907 one travel writer was grieving over Exmouth’s sprawling mass of mediocre housing, which he felt had clothed the resort “with a sad shabbiness”.”

Profit before responsible stewardship, is history repeating itself?”

Sidmouth: Swire fancies flats and car parking at Port Royal – or getting Prince Charles in!

He says Prince Charles’s architects would be “non-political” But in the absence of the Prince he says:

“My view of the Ham is that we could do multi-storey car parking there. It could be wrapped in retail or starter flats. There’s terrible parking pressure there already. You could have more people living in that part of the town.

“I think it would be a missed opportunity to just do something with the Drill Hall and not the rest of it. It requires an ambitious approach.”

And that’s not political? Pull the other one!

What do you bet Diviani comes to the same conclusion – by coincidence, of course!

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/bring-in-prince-charles-design-team-for-community-led-port-royal-regeneration-says-mp-1-5382156

Claire Wright wins debate at Exeter University – majority of students voting on her side!

From Claire Wright’s blog:

“Exeter University students attending a debate on Friday (2 Feb) voted overwhelmingly that they had no confidence in the government.

I was arguing the case for, with law student, Kyle Spencer, a member of the Conservative Party, who has become disillusioned with the government over Brexit and Theresa May’s leadership.

Arguing that people SHOULD have confidence in the government were former Exeter Conservative candidate in last year’s general election, barrister, James Taghdissian with his debating partner, Matthew Broughton, also a member of the Conservative Party.

Matthew reminded me more than a little of a young Jacob Rees Mogg….

There was a considerable amount of eloquent posturing between the two students, but fortunately, no reports of any scuffles in the bar afterwards …. !

My second political debate at the university, it was great fun, I really enjoyed it … and it was even better that we won so decisively (not that I am in the least bit competitive of course).”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/exeter_university_students_vote_overwhelmingly_for_no_confidence_in_the_gov

Clinton Devon Estates desperately tries to justify quarry industrial units

Owl says:

Surely, with EDDC having industrial areas aplenty at the East Devon Growth Point (where businesses enjoy a business rate holiday as a perk) there is no excuse for encouraging a heavy industry engineering company to remain at Blackhill Quarry to interfere with previously agreed remediation (already put back once) and a return to a wildlife habitat?

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/quarry-expansion-plans-provide-space-1166356

Given its large subsidy to Thelma Hulbert Gallery, should EDDC now save Exmouth museum?

“Exmouth’s museum faces a race against time to raise £200,000 if it is to secure the town’s heritage.

If the six-figure sum cannot be raised, the museum’s Sheppards Row home could be sold on the open market and the town may lose some of its historic artefacts, such as the original mechanism from the seafront clock tower.

Landowner South West Water (SWW) is looking to sell the Victorian building after the museum’s lease expired at the end of 2017.

The Museum Society of Exmouth has been told it needs to raise at least £130,000 to buy the building, but has set its sights on £200,000 to allow them to undertake ‘much needed’ renovation works.

Brian Leader, steward organiser at the museum, has warned that if the money isn’t found, the artefacts could either be transported to other museums out of town or may even have to be ‘dumped’.

He said: “The museum contains a unique collection of artefacts and documents dating back hundreds of years to the present day – to lose this would be unthinkable.

“If we were not able to raise the funds, we would probably have to distribute the artefacts to other museums.

“The town would definitely lose them and they could be dumped because we haven’t got anywhere to store them.

“We’re pushing for £200,000 because we need to do a lot of work to it. …”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/exmouth-museum-to-launch-200k-fundraising-bid-1-5378010

Government tax avoidance measures fail to bring in avoided tax

“A crackdown on offshore tax cheats has only recovered about a third of the £1bn that the government had predicted, according to estimates.

Figures from HM Revenue & Customs suggest that a series of measures to tackle offshore tax evasion will only bring in £349m a year – £650m a year less than had been hoped for.

Other measures aimed at closing tax avoidance loopholes have also failed to generate the revenues that had been expected, undermining assurances from ministers that were made following the Paradise Papers exposé.

Paradise Papers: Davos panel calls for global corporate tax reform
The figure appears in a list of updated estimates provided by HMRC to the independent Office for Budget Responsibility over the last two years and released under a freedom of information request by the Labour party.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said these figures exposed “the utter failure” of the government to ensure the super-rich and big corporations were paying their fair share in tax.

“This could be just the tip of the iceberg,” he said. McDonnell said that after the Paradise Papers revelations last year, the government had been quick to promise action but slow to deliver on it. “Now they have been shown to not even deliver on what they originally promise,” he said.

Measures have been launched to tackle the use of offshore accounts to hide money from HMRC, including agreements with Switzerland, Liechtenstein and other low-tax regimes to recover unpaid tax.

In total, these measures were forecast to bring in an extra £997m a year to the Treasury. However, a new forecast in September 2017, after most of the measures had closed, downgraded that figure to £349m a year.

Labour says a total of 28 anti-avoidance measures introduced under the coalition and Conservative government were bringing in less than expected, and that the gap between the tax take originally expected from them and the revised forecasts totalled £2.1bn, or 25%.

Measures that are now expected to raise less than originally forecast include a package of moves to tackle base-erosion and profit-shifting, where companies artificially move profits to locations with low tax rates.

These, which included new taxes on diverted profits and royalties, were expected to bring in a total of £515m a year but are now expected to raise £175m less each year.

Accelerated payments, whereby investors in avoidance schemes are asked to pay any disputed tax upfront, were forecast to bring in £1.1bn annually, £154m more than the latest forecasts suggest has been raised.

Some measures have yielded more than the original forecasts predicted, and offset some of the £2.1bn difference. For instance, the sums raised through cracking down on the way company takeovers are structured have been revised up to 554% of the original forecast. Preventing companies from avoiding stamp duty by cancelling and reissuing shares during a takeover is forecast to make the Treasury £425m a year against an original figure of £65m.

McDonnell said the downwards revision of other forecasts showed the Conservatives were dragging their feet on tax avoidance. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/tax-abuse-crackdown-only-third-expected-1bn-freedom-information

Has the NHS already been privatised? Of course it has!

People are confused when the Government says “The NHS has not been privatised” thinking: “Well, it’s still free so it can’t be private”. THIS IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO THINK. The reality is that many services have already been privatised. So, why don’t we pay for them? WE DO! The private companies (eg Virgin, which already has more than £1 billion of NHS contracts) charge the NHS for their services, adding on their cut for profits (directors salaries, perks and pensions) and their rewards to shareholders by way of dividends. This ADDS to the cost of the NHS which allows Jeremy Hunt to say we cannot afford it!

Of course we can’t if we are already paying private companies over the odds

And see the letter below this image:

For example:

Guardian letters:

“The problem with the King’s Fund’s latest analysis (NHS privatisation would be ‘political suicide’ says thinktank, theguardian.com, 1 February) is that it ignores the fact some privatisation has already taken place. Of course it would be madness for any government to hand over the whole NHS to insurance companies, or privatise it in the way that Margaret Thatcher privatised British Gas. There is not even a majority for this among Tory party members. But only a handful of people seriously believe that’s the plan: the private sector doesn’t want most of the NHS – care, complex care, treatment of chronic illness, most mental health services. No matter how wealthy you are, you can’t buy any private equivalent to NHS emergency services, maternity, or many others.

Instead private firms want to take over services that they see as potentially profitable – especially the provision of simple elective surgery – the bread and butter of Britain’s tiny private hospitals (average size 50 beds). But the lack of any public support for privatisation has not stopped commissioners giving contracts to Virgin and other private companies for work previously done by NHS trusts. This, by any reasonable definition, is privatisation. In 2015-16, 7.6% of NHS spending was on private providers.

Reshaping the law to allow this piecemeal privatisation was the aim of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which compels CCGs to put services out to tender. The King’s Fund lends weight to disingenuous government denials that they have been privatising services. They would do better to endorse demands for the repeal of the 2012 act and the reinstatement of the NHS as a publicly owned and publicly provided service.
Dr John Lister
Co-chair, Keep Our NHS Public”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/risks-of-outsourcing-and-privatisation-laid-bare

“Two Freemasons’ lodges operating secretly at Westminster”

Expect to see a comment from Owl’s East Devon Freemason’s spokesperson on this one!

“Two Freemasons’ lodges set up for members of parliament and political journalists are continuing to operate secretly at Westminster, the Guardian has learned.

New Welcome Lodge, which recruits MPs, peers and parliamentary staff, and Gallery Lodge, established for members of the political press corps known as the lobby, both remain active, according to Freemasonry records.

A third lodge called the Alfred Robbins Lodge, which was also set up for journalists, also continues to meet regularly in London.

The identities of the members of these three lodges remain unknown outside the world of Freemasonry, however, and so discreet are the members of Gallery Lodge that few journalists working in the lobby appear to be aware of its existence.

One current member of New Welcome told the Guardian that its members keep Gallery Lodge masons at arm’s length, on the grounds that while they are fellow members of the brotherhood, they are still journalists, and “they wouldn’t want journalists listening to their conversations”.

David Staples, the chief executive of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), the governing body for Freemasons in England and Wales, said there was no contradiction between the practice of journalism and membership of Freemasonry.

“Contrary to populist perception, being a Freemason helps those members in roles serving society in the broader sense, including journalists, politicians, policemen and lawyers, to be better in those jobs by encouraging them to act as better people themselves. Their membership is a positive for both them as individuals, and for society at large,” he said.

More Freemasons would declare their membership, he added, if they did not fear prejudice and discrimination: “There should be no conflict between an individual choosing whether to declare their membership or not with that individual’s ability to do their job well. But there is, because some choose to believe otherwise, and some of our detractors are doing so based on nothing other than blind prejudice.”

The disclosure that both political journalists and politicians are Freemasons comes after the outgoing chair of the Police Federation alleged that Freemasons were blocking reforms in policing and thwarting the progress of women and officers from black and minority ethnic communities.

After three years as the chair of the Police Federation, Steve White said: “I found that there were people who were fundamentally against any kind of change and any kind of progress, and they always happened to be Freemasons.”

The charge brought an angry denial from the UGLE. In a letter to the press, Staples said: “We are quietly proud that throughout history, when people have suffered discrimination both in public and social life, Freemasonry has welcomed them into our lodges as equals.” He added that many Freemasons chose to keep their membership secret in order to avoid being discriminated against.

At Westminster, MPs and peers are not obliged to declare their membership of the Freemasons, although the Commons authorities say they can disclose this information voluntarily on the registers of members’ and Lords’ financial interests. None currently do so.

Nor do any political journalists declare their membership of the Freemasons on the register of journalists’ interests, which is maintained by parliament.

The three lodges each meet four times a year at Freemasons’ Hall, the UGLE’s headquarters in Covent Garden, London.

The UGLE said Gallery Lodge currently has 45 members and Alfred Robbins Lodge – which is named after a former newspaperman and prominent mason – has 18 members.

“None of the members who have joined either of these two lodges since 2000 have their occupation recorded as journalist or anything obviously linked to the newspaper industry,” the spokesman said.

It is unclear how many of their members joined before that year, however, and UGLE will not identify the lodges’ members.

The Guardian understands past members of Gallery Lodge have included former journalists at the Times, the Daily Express, the Scotsman, and several Hansard reporters.

While the New Welcome lodge has about 30 to 40 members, the Guardian understands only about four of the current members are MPs, and that none are peers. Most of the members of the lodge are former MPs, parliamentary staff or police officers who have served at Westminster. MPs who are Freemasons are members of other lodges, however.

Although New Welcome lodge was set up following the 1926 general strike, to admit Labour politicians who had previously been refused entry to Freemasonry, the Guardian understands that none of its current members are Labour MPs.

Many are said to have left the Freemasons in the 1980s, fearing they would lose their seats if they were questioned about membership while reapplying for the Labour party’s nomination in between general elections, which had become a requirement at the start of that decade.

At least one Labour MP is said to have left New Welcome Lodge when facing reselection at this time, and arranged for his membership to be held in abeyance so that he could be quietly readmitted once he knew his parliamentary seat was secure.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/two-freemasons-lodges-operating-secretly-at-westminster

“Why money still rules the roost in British Politics” and why the very, very few control the not so many in the Tory Party

Electoral Reform Society:

If ever there was a story which revealed the disproportionate influence exerted by big party donors, it was the on the front page of The Times on Tuesday.

The article set out what has been described as a ‘donors’ revolt’ over Theresa May’s leadership, based on an account of a fundraising event held last week.

At the event it was reported that “about a quarter of the 50 donors present were said to have demanded her resignation.”

The story reflects the nature of power in the UK: a handful of wealthy individuals can buy access to government Ministers – and with it, the ability to ensure their views are heard on the front pages.

What distinguishes these individuals from most other people, of course, is the fact they are bankrolling the Conservative Party led by Mrs May.

But should that fact alone – particularly when very few people can afford to make significant donations to a political party – entitle them to have such a domineering voice on their leader’s credentials?

In a 21st century democracy, the answer should be a clear ‘no’. The Prime Minister and the government should be accountable to all citizens – regardless of how much money they have.

But the problem of big money in politics is not a new one. Senior politicians from a variety of different parties have been held to ransom by those with the deepest pockets – a fact which has led to scandal after scandal over the years: from Labour’s ‘cash for honours’ crisis, to the Liberal Democrats being caught arranging a private meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for a potentially illegal donor.

As we noted in our report, ‘Deal or No Deal: How to Put an End to Party Funding Scandals’, there is an expectation that comes with donations. The Committee on Standards in Public Life interviewed several of the major party donors in 2011, throwing up some uncomfortable if wholly logical conclusions about the relationship between donations, policy influence and honors.

Donor Stuart Wheeler suggested it was ‘natural’ and unobjectionable that donors would gain policy influence: “If it is influence in the sense of being able to put their views on what is best for the country and how the country should be run, I do not see any objection to that.”

House of Lords appointee Michael Farmer suggested that many donors would expect an honour in return for their finance:

“You cannot get away from the fact that the word ‘peerage’ is connected to large donations, so if you are giving a large donation there is a part of your mind somewhere that every now and then thinks about it”

The problem with the UK’s big-donor culture, even when the donations are legitimate, is that it gives those with the most money a disproportionately large say.

The story this week concerned just a handful of very rich individuals. Compare that to the 12.4 million people who voted for the Conservative party at last year’s election.

It highlights once again that the system of party funding in this country is broken and skews politics away from ordinary people who should be at the forefront of politicians’ minds when they are making decisions.

The ability to purchase political influence is damaging to trust and confidence in our democratic institutions. It is time we had a fairer model for funding our politics – one which put voters at the centre.”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-money-still-rules-the-roost-in-british-politics/

Virgin – propped up by British Government

“As Britain’s best-known businessman, seen by millions as a buccaneering role model, Sir Richard Branson has produced bookshelves of advice about “relying on yourself”, creating a “nation of go-getters” and “standing on your own feet”.

As he wrote in his self-help manual, Screw It, Let’s Do It: “If you want milk, don’t sit in the middle of the field in the hope that the cow will back up to you.” This year, however, is likely to be one where Branson gets most of his British milk from the taxpayer teat.

Using recently published company accounts and regulatory disclosures, The Sunday Times has established that Branson’s Virgin Group is on course to join what critics call the “corporate welfare state” — with the majority of its UK revenues coming from work subsidised, or wholly funded, by the public purse.

More than 80% of revenues at Virgin UK Holdings, Branson’s main holding company in Britain, already come from operations dependent on public funding, mainly rail and the NHS, the accounts show.

Branson’s companies received £320m from taxpayers in 2016 for running public services. Some £262m of this was from the health service or local councils for medical and social care through his Virgin Care business. Then there was a net government subsidy of £58m for Virgin’s share of the East and West Coast rail franchises, a joint ventures with Stagecoach.

Virgin UK Holdings does not own all Branson’s British businesses, such as his stakes in Virgin Money and Virgin Atlantic, his biggest cash cow in 2016. And the tycoon — who lives mostly in his tax haven personal island of Necker in the Caribbean — now has substantial international interests, not least his space venture.

Nonetheless, in the UK, the balance of his income is shifting more towards public services. In a deal likely to be completed this year, Branson will slash his interest in Virgin Atlantic, from 51% to 20%. He has already cut his stake in Virgin Money to 35%.

Even in 2016, with the airline still on board, healthcare and rail accounted for about 40% of Virgin’s total UK revenues. By comparison, the now-collapsed Carillion earned about 45% of its UK income from the government that year.

Virgin Care has more or less doubled its NHS work in the past two years. If that growth were to continue, it is easy to imagine that more than half of Virgin’s UK revenues could be derived from public sector work — particularly in light of the likely reduction of Branson’s airline holding.

“Branson poses as a champion of competition, but has always been reliant on getting government-granted contracts and monopolies.” said Branson’s biographer, Tom Bower. “But as that sort of work grows, so does the risk that political controversy over it contaminates the brand loyalty, which is Virgin’s only real asset.”

Branson’s recent deal to escape up to £200m in future payments to the Treasury for his 10% share of the East Coast rail franchise drew that sort of political flak. Lord (Andrew) Adonis, a former transport secretary and chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, called it “scandalous” — though Virgin points out that it has lost money on East Coast, and paid a £2m premium to the government last year.

On the far more lucrative West Coast line, Virgin’s 51% share generated revenues of £1.1bn, profits of £34m and it paid £7.5m in tax in 2016-17. The franchise also netted Branson £60m in state subsidy that year — and almost £1bn since 2008, according to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) regulator.

Virgin says most of this money was paid to Network Rail to maintain the tracks its trains use. The ORR, however, defines it as a subsidy to Virgin, since the operator would otherwise have to pay Network Rail itself.

West Coast is much improved under Virgin — though Branson cannot claim all the credit, as he often does. The £9bn upgrade, allowing today’s faster, more frequent trains, was funded by further Treasury cash.

Despite all the subsidies, Virgin now charges £338 for a standard peak return from London to Manchester, up 50% since 2008. The morning peak period, during which such fares apply, finishes as late as 10.40am, while the evening peak for most English destinations starts at 3.01pm.

However, it is the NHS that has the potential to cause Branson the greatest political grief. Tellingly, in the 400 NHS and social care contracts now run by Virgin, its branding is extremely low-key. The Care Quality Commission, the health regulator, strongly praises many of its services. Yet middle England may not always agree. In Somerset and Yorkshire, where Virgin runs NHS contracts, there have been controversies about care standards. In Surrey, Virgin was criticised for suing the NHS, winning a multimillion-pound settlement. There is also controversy about tax. Branson’s core health and social care company, Virgin Care, made more than £8m profit in the year to March 2017. Its accounts, published on December 28, show a liability for corporation tax of £1.6m.

Across the web of companies that make up the Virgin Care group, however, “administrative expenses” of £31m were set against profits, reducing tax liabilities to nil. Virgin Care claims on its website that “we have always paid our UK taxes in full and will continue to do so”. In fact, it has never paid any UK tax — because, it says, it has never made a profit.

Virgin declined to respond to detailed questions about what the administrative expenses were, though it said they were less than in the public NHS.

Branson says Virgin Care has “saved the NHS and local authorities millions” and insists he does “not want or intend to profit personally from the NHS”. If and when a dividend was taken from the work, a spokesman said, all the money would be invested back into NHS services.

Virgin said last night that it had “many successful businesses across the world”, and continued to “start and invest in new ventures”. It said the publicly funded businesses accounted for a smaller share of profits than of revenues, and pointed out that it might no longer run West Coast after 2019, when its current deal ends, though it is bidding for a 30% share in the new franchise.

Branson’s trajectory in Britain seems clear, however. While Virgin’s name still adorns many UK businesses, it no longer owns most of them, including Virgin Mobile, Virgin Media and Virgin Radio, instead licensing other companies to use the Virgin brand. “Virgin is increasingly living off the state,” said Bower.

Yet even as it does so, new questions are being asked over the model, and even the very principle, of private involvement in public services. With the collapse of Carillion, the rise of the hard left, and a scathing National Audit Office verdict on the Private Finance Initiative, could Branson, for once, have misjudged a trend?”

Source: Sunday Times (paywall)

Scrutiny and Privatisation don’t go together like a horse and carriage

“A leading Capita shareholder has attacked the embattled outsourcing giant for flouting corporate governance rules, and claimed its current crisis was “preventable”.

Royal London Asset Management said it had been “privately raising concerns about Capita’s weak governance for a number of years” and had repeatedly voted against pay deals.

Shares in Capita crashed 55% last week after its new chief executive Jon Lewis said it would need a £700m rights issue, suspended its dividend and launched a fire sale of assets. Lewis, the former chief executive of oil services company Amec Foster Wheeler, plans to simplify the outsourcing behemoth, which has contracts ranging from army recruitment to Tesco Bank’s call centres.

The broadside by Royal London, a 0.4% shareholder, said the new board must “ensure that Capita does not repeat the mistakes of the past”. Royal London’s corporate governance chief, Ashley Hamilton Claxton, said: “Until recently, Capita’s board flouted one of the basic rules of the corporate governance code, with a small board primarily comprised of management insiders. The result was a board that lacked the independent spirit to rigorously assess whether the company was making the right long-term decisions.”

She added that Capita’s pay policy “left something to be desired” — citing big losses in 2013 that were excluded from the calculations on executives’ pay.”

Source: Sunday Times (paywall)

Who fights for the NHS in East Devon? Your Independent councillors!

At today’s Save Our Hospital Services demo in Exeter today. East Devon Alliance and Claire Wright make their mark but not an East Devon Tory (including our two East Devon MPs) to be seen!

East Devon Alliance DCC Councillor Martin Shaw

East Devon Alliance EDDC Councillor Cathy Gardner

DCC Independent Councillor Claire Wright

East Devon Alliance Councillors Marianne Rixson with East Devon Alliance Councillor Cathy Gardner

One of the many interviews the independent councillors did on the day.

HM Revenue and Customs caught in their own privatisation tax trap!

“…
HM Revenue & Customs

In 2001 HMRC signed a £3.3bn contract with Mapeley, a little-known private equity firm. The deal involved handing over the ownership and management of 591 tax offices, including the freehold of 132 of them, to an offshore company managed by Mapeley, then based in the Cayman Islands.

Mapeley won the contract largely because it underbid UK rivals, which had to include VAT in their calculations. The Cayman Island connection gave Mapeley a 20% advantage.

The irony of the tax authority signing a deal with an avoidance vehicle was lost on the government and the then chancellor Gordon Brown. It banked the £370m from Mapeley and pressed ahead.

Civil servants were unaware at the time that 15 years later they would be managing around 20 change programmes, several of which involve reorganising the Mapeley offices. The NAO has repeatedly criticised the deal as expensive and said it should be ditched when it runs out in 2021, despite Mapeley, which is now a major commercial landlord across Britain, shifting back to the UK.

HMRC says legal advice at the time blocked it from excluding firms based in tax havens and that this is no longer the case. From 2021 it plans to move to “direct leases for property and smaller, more flexible facilities management contracts that we can control more easily”.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/03/three-public-private-contracts-pfi-good-bad-baffling

“Hundreds protest NHS crisis in Exeter as councillor warns: ‘Only Derriford and RD&E will be left’ “

Brilliant coverage of today’s NHS demo in Exeter including interviews with EDDC East Devon Alliance councillor Cathy Gardner, DCC East Devon Alliance councillor Martin Shaw and DCC Independent Councillor Claire Wright making excellent points about the destruction of our NHS.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/hundreds-protest-nhs-crisis-exeter-1162119

“TORY MP STANDS UP FOR LABOUR POLICY PLAN IN SPAT WITH TORY MINISTER”

“A Tory minister has been taken to task for juvenile political point scoring by an unlikely source – a senior Tory MP.

The incredible spat between two of the Tories’ most prolific tweeters broke out when Treasury Secretary Liz Truss took a cheap shot at a housing policy being considered by Labour.

Under the plan, which is revealed on the front page of today’s Guardian, landowners would no longer be allowed to inflate the price of land sold for property development:

[There then follows a nasty Twitter spat between Tories Liz Truss and Nick Boles where Bowles sticks up for Corbyn!!!]

Truss responded by trying to tar the attempt to get more council homes built as some kind of Stalinist land grab.

But Nick Boles, himself a former planning minister, was having none of it.

The pair continued to spar until Truss brought the embarrassing blue-on-blue battle to a curt conclusion.

The clash comes after Boles made clear his dissatisfaction with abject lack of policy ideas coming from the Government and his party. …

The Conservative family is not a happy one.

As for Truss’ objections to Labour’s policy, we were reminded of a policy included in the last budget by her boss, Chancellor Philip Hammond.

Hammond announced an anti-land banking policy which the Tories had described as “Mugabe-style expropriation” when Labour floated the idea.

Liz Truss will be defending this “sinister confiscation” before you know it…

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/02/tory-mp-stands-up-for-labour-policy-plan-in-spat-with-tory-minister/

“Fix the NHS: Protesters rally in London [and Exeter] to call for government action

“Health workers, activists and unions are marching in central London on Saturday to protest against government inaction over the NHS winter crisis.

Hospitals have been overwhelmed in recent weeks by a surge in admissions that has led to delays of up to 12 hours on emergency wards, patients left on trollies for hours and thousands of patients forced to wait in ambulances before receiving urgent care.

Two pressure groups, the People’s Assembly and Health Campaigns Together, have organised the rally to call on the government to plug funding and resource gaps in the health service. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/03/fix-the-nhs-protesters-rally-in-london-to-call-for-government-action

“Dozens of academy schools need bailouts from taxpayers”

“Operators of dozens of academy schools are having to rely on emergency handouts from the taxpayer as a result of mounting deficits that threaten to put some out of business.

In the latest sign of the financial pressures now on the nation’s schools, the auditors of one operator that oversees 21 schools raised concerns over its ability to keep operating after it posted a £2.5m loss last year.

The revelations follow an investigation in last week’s Observer that found that more than half of the biggest multi-academy chains (MATs) had issued warnings about funding, citing pay, staffing levels, building maintenance and mounting deficits. It has now emerged that some smaller trusts have had to ask for cash advances from the state to stay afloat.

AdvertisementHide
The Birmingham-based Academy Transformation Trust (ATT), which received funding from the government of £59m last year and operates 21 schools educating nearly 12,000 pupils, is one of a number of chains that appear to be relying on future government handouts to keep functioning.

In a note on its 2016-17 annual accounts, the ATT trustees admit: “While the trust’s balance sheet remains solvent, the net position of income funds shows the trust to have a deficit of £2.513m. The trust is also forecasting a further reduction in funds in 2017-18.

“The trust has been taking action to address this position and is in advanced discussion with the Education [and] Skills Funding Agency [ESFA] to provide an advance to ensure appropriate cashflow during 2017-18 and beyond.”

An auditor adds: “A material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the trust’s ability to continue as a going concern.” It states that ATT’s financial position had been “worsening throughout the year”, and that its board of trustees had not been sufficiently aware of this because of “failings in the trust’s financial reporting and forecasting procedures”.

The Rodillian Multi Academy Trust, in West Yorkshire, disclosed that it also needs a “cash advance … to be able to operate effectively”. The trust, which operates four schools, reported a deficit of £1.5m last year.

“In common with all state-funded schools the [trust] faces considerable pressures on funding,” its accounts state. “The trust took on two schools that had low pupil numbers, were not financially strong and needed a managed staff reduction to address the inherited over-staffing.

“Managing the cash flow month to month is difficult and … the level of creditors has become uncomfortably high. A business case is being prepared to request a repayable cash advance from the ESFA. The ESFA acknowledge that the trust requires a cash advance to be able to operate effectively.”

Andy Goulty, Rodillian’s chief executive, told the Observer that he had come under pressure to take on new schools and had suffered as a result. “It was missionary work really to go in to a community like my own and turn it round. It has been turned around. However, in hindsight we probably wouldn’t take it on. As things have got tighter over the years, we have not had the resource. The government keeps saying that more money is going into schools. Well, yes, it is, but we are paying out more in pensions, national insurance. What is being spent on the kids is less and less.”

London-based Chapel Street Community Schools Trust, which runs five free schools and two academies, saw it post a deficit of £1.6m and state that it is depending on the government providing cash “beyond the normal funding arrangements”.

Its accounts say: “The trust places considerable reliance on continued government funding. This is likely to remain unchanged in terms of the funding per pupil rate, despite pay, pension and general inflation pressures. This increases the risk of deficits.”

Plymouth CAST is predicting that more than 90% of its schools would be in deficit by next year. Its auditors stated: “A material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the academy trust’s ability to continue as a going concern.” The trust reported a £1.54m deficit for the year. It referred itself to the body that oversees school funding last year.

ATT said that a recovery plan has been developed “which shows the trust returning to in-year surplus in 2018-19 and overall surplus no later than 2021 … The trust [had] over £3m in the bank at 31 August 2017.” Rodillian said it had a plan to deliver a surplus in 2017-18 and a significant surplus in 2018-19.

Chapel Street trust said it had experienced some historical financial difficulties related to setting up new schools, but had good educational outcomes. It said its accounts made clear it was on “a sounder financial footing”.

The Department for Education says that school funding is rising from almost £41bn in 2017-18 to £43.5bn in 2019-20, and that every school will receive an increase in funding through the national funding formula this year.”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/03/academies-schools-deficit-bailout