Standards, what standards?

“Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt will not face any sanctions after apologising twice for the late reporting of his interest in a property company.

Parliamentary standards commissioner Kathryn Stone ruled that although Mr Hunt had breached the MP’s code of conduct, his offence was “at the less serious end of the spectrum”.

The MP took “full responsibility” for his misinterpretation of the rules.

She decided against referring him to the Commons Committee on Standards.

Her inquiry followed a complaint by Labour MP John Trickett.

Mr Hunt was criticised in April for failing to record his involvement in Mare Pond Properties in the MPs’ register of interests within a 28-day time limit.

The Conservative cabinet minister apologised at the time and then did so again in person after admitting to Ms Stone he was a day late in registering the company’s purchase of seven luxury flats in Southampton.

According to her report, Mr Hunt said Mare Pond was initially “a shell company with no assets or value”.

While declaring his involvement to his department and the Cabinet Office, he wrongly believed it was not necessary to register his interest until it became operational with the purchase of the flats

In a letter to Mr Trickett, Ms Stone said: “I consider Mr Hunt’s acknowledgement of his breach of paragraph 13 of the code and his apology to be an appropriate outcome. This matter is now closed.”

Massive increase in homelessness in East Devon

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/homelessness-east-devon-rises-dramatically-1632504

DCC Health and Social Care “Scrutiny” – Claire Wright continues her battle

“Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee meeting: A PACKED AGENDA….

I asked for several items, including the future of our community hospitals, the plight of local carers, the local NHS deficit and what is being done to reduce it.

Also, on the agenda is how the local NHS coped with winter pressures (something I have asked for, for months and even resorted to a Freedom Of Information request on – it was refused, I have issued a formal complaint)……..

I have been really disappointed in recent months and years at what I see as a systemic lack of accountability in the NHS. As a Health Scrutiny Committee member, I would expect to get straight answers to straight questions at meetings, but unfortunately this rarely happens, which is why I was forced to submit a Freedom of Information request about a basic set of data tables relating to winter pressures.

I will not hesitate to do this again.

The report on carers starts on page 55 of the link below. This came about after I read a detailed survey and saw that local people who are caring for loved ones may not feel very supported.

I subsequently had a meeting with senior officers and saw the raw (anonymised) data from local focus groups. It was disturbing and it appeared to me that many local carers are having a really hard time managing, because of the government’s austerity agenda. I asked for the report to be referred to the Health Scrutiny Committee, but was told this wasn’t possible as consent had not been given by the participants of the focus group.

A version of the report has been submitted instead. I am pleased that a number of measures have been put in place by officers to try and improve matters, however, I have already told senior officers that leaving out the comments has meant that the voice of carers has been lost, in my view.

I believe that there should have been an attempt to secure retrospective consent for the publication of the report, as without a proper voice, the government will simply carry on ignoring carers’ plight – and they deserve better.

If you want to read the reports – and if you care about our NHS I would urge you to! The link is here
http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx

Members of the public are permitted to address the committee in the 15 minute slot at the beginning of the meeting, but need to register four days ahead to do so. Email Gerry.rufolo@devon.gov.uk

The meeting starts at 2.15pm on Thursday 7 June. It will be webcast from this link:

https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/home

and archived afterwards.

Sidford residents say resounding no to new industrial zone in village

“Residents and representatives blasted fresh plans for a business park between Sidford and Sidbury this week.

The reduced outline application failed to win over civic leaders and members of the public as it was unanimously opposed by Sidmouth Town Council’s planning committee on Wednesday.

Access, inadequate roads and flooding risk were among the reasons.

More than 150 residents, as well as town, district and county council representatives packed into Sidford Social Hall.

A change of use is being sought for the agricultural site, in Two Bridges Road, to provide 8,445sqm of employment floorspace.

District councillor Marianne Rixson said there was ‘zero requirement’ for the development and that the A375 was not wide enough to cope with traffic. She claimed the ‘only beneficiaries’ from the scheme would be the applicants, not ‘the people of the Sid Valley, nor the local economy’.

“It’s all about greed, not need,” added Cllr Rixson.

John Loudoun, of Sidbury, said it was ‘laudable’ for the applicants to promote alternative transport to the site, but the details were vague.

He added: “This is the wrong development in the wrong place. I support the need for local infrastructure – but not there. It will not be good for Sidford and I can assure you it will not be good for Sidbury.”

David Addis backed the application and said: “The Sid Valley needs to have a future supporting our families and the families that come after us. It should not just be a place for retired people or a holiday destination – we need a diverse economy.”

Joseph Marchant, agent for the applicant, said concerns from the previous proposals, submitted in 2016, had been listened to, adding: “It is quite substantially different, there is a huge reduction in volume. It represents 37 per cent of what was previously submitted. The volume of buildings would provide for 250 jobs and that is important in terms of providing the need identified in your allocated Local Plan as a district.”

Councillor Ian McKenzie-Edwards, who represents Sidford, said: “We know how busy that road gets. Putting this employment site where it is projected is going to exacerbate traffic. It’s going to lower the quality of life. The village of Sidbury; the traffic there is horrendous sometimes.”

Cllr Ian Barlow recommended that the council did not support the plans over the same concerns expressed about the 2016 application.

He said: “It is in the Local Plan, we know it is, and we fought to keep it out. Mistakes were made and we have seen it already. The Local Plan is a massive document and no council, however good or bad, can get it all right. If it is wrong, change it and have the guts to admit the mistake was made. It is a stupid place to put it. It’s expensive to build, it’s not required, certainly not the size of it – there has been no demand proved.”

A public meeting over the plans is due to be held in Sidford Social Hall on Tuesday, at 6.30pm.

The fate of the application will be decided by the district council.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/resounding-no-for-sidford-business-park-proposal-1-5542075

“Town council ordered to disclose contract with developer for sports complex sale” [for housing]

“The First-tier Tribunal has upheld a decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office that required a town council to disclose a contract entered into more than five years ago with a developer over the multi-million pound sale of a sports complex.

The case of Hemsworth Town Council v Information Commissioner & (Dismissed : Freedom of Information Act 2000) [2018] UKFTT 2017_0120 (GRC) involved conjoined appeals as the separate requests for information were materially identical.

The requests centred on the contract between Saul Construction, the developer, and Hemsworth Town Council in respect of the sale of the Hemsworth Sports Complex.

Entered into in early 2011, the development was to consist of more than 150 homes. It was agreed that the town council would take over a new community centre and new football facilities. That has happened.

Planning permission was sought for the site but was quashed by the High Court. Permission has been re-granted but is the subject of another judicial review.

Because of the hiatus caused by the judicial reviews, Saul Construction has refused to complete the contract. Title therefore remains with the council. The developer has paid £360,000 pursuant to a section 106 agreement and paid part of the contract price. Some £1.4m remains outstanding from the purchase price. The council and the developer are seeking to renegotiate the contract.

The requesters are local residents who have expressed concern about various environmental issues resulting from the sale and loss of open space.

The town council refused their request, arguing that the documents were exempt from disclosure under s. 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which covers commercial interests. This was upheld on review.
When the solicitors to one of the requesters cited the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”), the council relied on the exemption in regulation 12(5)(e) (legitimate economic interests). It did not however explain why.

On review, the council maintained its decision and argued that the public interest favoured withholding the requested information.

After receiving a complaint, the ICO concluded that the EIR, rather than FOIA, applied.

The ICO decided that the town council had failed to discharge the burden on it of establishing that regulation 12(5)(e) was engaged. “With regard to legitimate economic interests, under Tribunal caselaw it had to be shown that, on the balance of probabilities, adverse effects would accrue.” [Tribunal’s emphasis]

The authority had failed to identify any specific adverse effects arising from the disclosure of the disputed information (or parts of it), the ICO found. It concluded therefore that it did not need to apply the public interest test.

Hemsworth Town Council appealed, but this has now been rejected by the First-tier Tribunal.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35511%3Atown-council-ordered-to-disclose-contract-with-developer-for-sports-complex-sale&catid=59&Itemid=27

Dirty money?

“Tories take Putin’s pal £50,000… on the day Theresa May blamed Russia for Skripal poisoning”

… On the very day Mrs May was firmly pointing a finger at Vladimir Putin over the Salisbury murder bid, a former Kremlin aide’s wife ploughed the cash into the Tory party’s coffers.

And Lubov Chernukhin gave a further £50,000 to the Conservatives as police investigated the assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia – bringing the total donated in the two weeks after the poisoning to £100,000.

Lubov’s husband Vladimir is Putin’s former deputy finance minister.

Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable branded the payment “sheer hypocrisy”.

He said: “The Conservatives should have returned the money straightaway.

The very least they can do is return this now.”

Labour Party chairman Ian Lavery added: “It smacks of hypocrisy for Theresa May to accept tens of ­thousands of pounds from a donor with links to Putin’s regime on the same day she denounced the Kremlin over the Salisbury attack.

“The Tories need to come clean with the public about what checks they have made on the wealth amassed by their super-rich donors.”

It comes after we revealed two Tory peers – Lord Hague and Lord Barker – are both earning thousands of pounds a year from firms slammed by MPs over links to the Kremlin.

Lubov’s gift was on March 12, according to official records seen by the Mirror.

… When she took office in July 2016, the PM said it would not be “business as usual” with Russian donors amid growing tensions between Moscow and the West. But her party has since received more than £800,000 from Russian-linked supporters.

Banker Lubov alone has donated more than £600,000 since 2010.

It is understood she has lived here for many years and is a British citizen. There is no suggestion she has no right to donate to the Tory party. …”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-given-50000-kremlin-aide-12630498

Councils’ end-of-year accounts – the effects of austerity on the accounting function

[The bold highlighted sections are those of Owl]:

“Under the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, English local authorities are expected to have their 2017–18 statement of accounts prepared, audited and published by 31 July, a reduction of two months (33%) on previous years.

Changes are obviously being implemented in different ways at different authorities, but some common themes and early learning is starting to emerge.

These can be summed up under four separate headings: Leadership, process, capacity and co-operation, and external audit.

Leadership

If year-end closedown is not seen as a priority by senior management, either the deadlines will not be achieved or the quality of the end-product will suffer. The statement of accounts should be seen as a corporate priority, because it explains how the authority has spent taxpayers money.

Successful section 151 officers “walk the talk” by:

Allowing key staff to focus on closure and not distracting them with other tasks in this important period.

Leading, not just attending, meetings to plan closedown work and monitor progress made to date.

Providing strategic direction on complex and potentially contentious accounting issues.

Fostering good working relationships with the external auditors at director/audit manager level — this pays dividends when unexpected problems crop up late in the day.

Process

First of all, start early. Prior year comparatives, accounting policies, and around half of all disclosure notes can all be drafted and audited well in advance of the year end. Secondly, avoid unnecessary effort by taking the following steps:

Keep journal postings up to date, clear suspense accounts regularly and reconcile bank accounts and feeder systems monthly.

Use estimation techniques to simplify accruals, provisions, overhead re-allocations and similar calculations.

Apply materiality levels and de-minimis thresholds intelligently to avoid unnecessary work and to “de-clutter” core statements and disclosure notes.
Capacity

Following eight years of austerity many back-office services in local government are running at not much more than minimum staffing levels and have insufficient headroom to deal with the additional workload year-end closure represents.

Take a pragmatic approach to staffing needs and recruit accordingly.

Increasingly, local authorities are buying-in short-term capacity to provide specialist skills or improve team resilience.

An alternative approach is using existing resources more flexibly. Some year-end tasks are complex, but many disclosure notes can be prepared by anyone with basic numeracy and spreadsheet skills.

Managing a cast of thousands does take time initially but this reduces as they gain confidence, and most employees will welcome the opportunity to try something new.

All finance staff, including budget holders and treasury management teams, should expect to be involved in closedown.

Co-operation with external audit

Spare a thought for the auditors. Practitioners, in most cases, will only have one set of accounts to worry about, whereas an external audit team might have five or six.

Inevitably, clients who provide good quality raw material and respond quickly to audit queries are expecting to receive earlier certificates and opinions. Auditors also seem to be trying to save time by looking to clients to provide audit evidence and accounting views that they might previously have obtained for themselves, or referred back to specialist technical teams.

Working pro-actively with the local audit team to resolve outstanding issues and avoid unnecessary delays, will be key to meeting the new deadlines this year so I suggest the following:

Operate a no surprises policy: Hold early meetings to discuss complex or contentious issues and any proposed changes to the accounts, working papers or key personnel.

Document the basis of any judgements exercised and assumptions made when preparing the accounts, and the rationale for any changes in accounting policies.

Be prepared to draft, at short notice, briefing notes on any technical issues arising. This forces you to understand the technicalities and provides the auditor with a much clearer answer to the question being raised.

Provide a range of calculations for estimated accruals and provisions so that auditors can confirm these represent the average, or most likely outcome.

Evidence all quality assurance and review processes undertaken at pre-audit stage so that auditors can rely on this work to reduce their own levels of testing.

Prepare comprehensive working papers that provide a clear audit trail and demonstrate that key code requirements have been met.

And finally, don’t forget to manage the on-site audit process. Nominate a key contact point who will take on responsibility for ensuring that audit queries and requests for further information are dealt with promptly (and comprehensively) and that changes to the accounts are processed as agreed.

Peter Worth
director at Worth Technical Accounting Solutions.”