Devon Tory GP MP pours cold water on “extra” NHS funding promise

Owl says: surely “extra” money for the NHS means ALL CCG costings have to be revised? And all the arguments about WHY services have to be cut must be revisited.

“Theresa May has come under fire for promising that a Brexit windfall will provide an extra £400m a week for the NHS. May – who will pledge an extra £20bn in annual real terms from 2023-24 in a major speech – has been ridiculed for linking the money to Brexit savings. “At the moment, as a member of the European Union, every year we spend significant amounts of money on our subscription, if you like, to the EU,” she said on BBC One’s Andrew Marr show. “When we leave we won’t be doing that.”

Two senior Tory MPs, who are also doctors, took aim at May: “The Brexit dividend tosh was expected but treats the public as fools. Sad to see Govt slide to populist arguments rather than evidence on such an important issues,” tweeted Sarah Wallaston, who chairs the Commons health and social care committee. Dr Philip Lee, MP for Bracknell, tweeted: “There is no evidence yet that there will be a ‘Brexit dividend’ – so it’s tax rises, more borrowing or both.”

The PM’s decision to frame extra spending specifically as a benefit of leaving the EU has been widely seen as a sop to hardline Brexiters in her cabinet, echoing Boris Johnson’s suggestion during the EU referendum that Brexit would free up £350m a week extra for the NHS.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/18/monday-briefing-nhs-windfall-is-brexit-dividend-tosh-says-tory-mp

National parks and Devon unitaries – an intriguing solution

Councillor John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council appeared recently on BBC Spotlight, and explained that Devon was unlikely to become a Unitary Authority, because its population, at nearly 800,000, was greater than the Government’s preferred size for a Unitary, which is between 300,000 and 500,000. He may be right: Devon might be too big.

Meanwhile Michael Gove, Minister for the Environment, announces that he is to conduct a national review of National Parks, and says he is keen to create new ones.

Is there an opportunity here to kill two birds with one stone?

The Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks already exist, and there are proposals for a Dorset and East Devon National Park, and a South Hams National Park. Were these National Parks to be created, and significant powers handed over to them, the rest of Devon’s population would be significantly reduced.

There is also the Tamar Valley AONB and the Blackdown Hills AONB, which could be incorporated into an expanded Dartmoor National Park and Dorset and East Devon National Park respectively.

A redrawing of boundaries to, for example, link the South Hams AONB/National Park with Dartmoor opens the prospect of three large parcels of Devon being created to create new National Parks, which would be at least semi-autonomous administratively from the rest of Devon.

The rump of Devon, still centred upon Exeter, and including, essentially, Teignbridge, Torridge, North Devon, Mid Devon, and much of East Devon, would have a population of around 500,000, and thus meet the Government’s guidelines.

All the existing District Councils would disappear, thus at a stroke removing an entire tier of local government and saving tens of millions of pounds. And the new and expanded National Parks will bring in greatly increased tourism revenue, and provide much-needed protection to our glorious countryside.

Sums on Knowle relocation not adding up for us, the taxpayers

“Remaining at Knowle with essential and basic repairs undertaken would have cost the council £ 4.5m over 20 years. In contrast moving to the new HQ in Honiton will provide a cash saving of £ 1.4m over the same period. That’s a difference of £5.9m.’

The above quote is lifted from the EDDC web-site.

So even using their figures, it will take 20 years to recover half the cost of the new building. Only after 40 years will we get our money back.

So if we see a Devon unitary authority in the next 40 years we will lose money.

But, of course, it’s much worse, because the EDDC numbers assume that there will be no ‘essential and basic repairs’ to the new building over those 40 years. Impossible, of course.

Even worse, no-one wanted EDDC to remain in the whole of the Knowle building. Those opposed to the move recommended that EDDC retrench to the modern buildings that were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Half the size of the Knowle as it now stands. So, even using EDDC’s figures, half the size would mean half the ‘essential and basic repairs’, so only £2.25 million, and half the ‘cash saving’ of £1.4 million, so a trifling £700,000 over 20 years. Peanuts.

So even using EDDC’s own numbers, the new building cannot produce any savings for 80 years.

Even, even worse, EDDC has borrowed the money to build the new building. The cost of borrowing £11 million, the notional build cost of Blackdown House, is of the order of £400,000 per annum, dwarfing the expected savings.

Even, even, even worse, the costs of the new building do not include the fees charged by various advisers over many years, the cost of the move itself, compensation to staff forced to travel further, new equipment, officer and councillor time, and the cost in terms of disruption. Plus all the costs of disposing of the Knowle.

The true cost of relocation is almost certainly at least £20 million.

Even, even, even, even worse, those EDDC numbers do not take into account the ‘essential and basic’ repairs conducted at their new Exmouth office, which came in at a whopping £1.7 million. Nor the running costs of Exmouth, which will surely be at least £1.4 million over that 20 year period. Almost certainly much more: Exmouth is, of course, an old building from the 1920s, far older than the modern brick buildings at Knowle.

Blackdown House will be a tremendous drain upon the finances of EDDC from the day it opens, and the expected cost savings thereafter will be microscopic compared to the huge borrowing costs.

But the biggest problem of all is that EDDC’s own consultants informed them that the building constructed at a cost of £20 million would only have an open market value on its completion of £3 million. That included the value of the land on which it sits.

So, if Devon goes unitary any time in the next few years, we will have lost £17 million.

The only good news for residents of East Devon is that the whole of Devon will then have to pay the bill and the borrowing costs.

Swire’s mate and co-director “shames himself”

It seems the national press is reluctant to point out that Lord Barker is in the energy business with our own Hugo Swire:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/05/20/swire-and-lord-barker-linked-to-russian-military-and-oligarchs-appear-to-be-in-business-together-a-business-apparently-not-on-his-register-of-interests/

“A Tory peer has “shamed himself” by ­lobbying for a Russian energy giant that had sanctions imposed after the Salisbury attack.

David Cameron’s ex-Energy Minister Greg Barker met with the Irish government last month in a bid to enlist its support for En+.

Lord Barker is chairman of En+, which is majority owned by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of Vladimir Putin.

En+ and Mr Deripaska were slapped with sanctions after the murder plot against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March.

The meeting can be disclosed today by the Mirror.

In response, MPs called on Theresa May to launch an inquiry into Lord Barker’s business dealings.

In April, Donald Trump imposed sanctions against billionaire Mr Deripaska and the companies in which he is a large shareholder.

His firms include aluminium producer, Rusal, and its parent firm En+. Rusal is the parent company of Aughinish Alumina in County Limerick, which employs 450 workers.

Lord Barker’s meeting with Irish Business Minister Heather Humphreys will raise ­questions about Tory links to Russia after the PM blamed the Salisbury attack on Moscow.

Lib Dem MP Tom Brake said: “He has shamed himself and the office he held.”

Jon Trickett MP, Labour’s Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, added: “It stinks.”

The Irish government said it remained “concerned” about the impact of sanctions.

There is no suggestion Lord Barker is in breach of the Lords’ code of conduct.

Neither he nor En+ would comment.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-shamed-himself-lobbying-russian-12718297

The Tory MP who thinks it’s ok to take pictures of womens’ underwear without their consent – and wants the NHS to start charging

The bill had cross-party support and was expected to pass into law. He appears to have offered no explanation for his action He is the MP for Christchurch in Dorset.

Maybe make sure you wear trousers in Christchurch, ladies!

“Sir Christopher Chope has a reputation for derailing private members’ bills – just as he did on Thursday when he shouted “object!” to one that would have made upskirting a sexual offence.

The Christchurch MP also used the Commons session on Friday to delay another government-backed bill, which would make it an offence to attack police dogs or horses, or prison officer dogs.

In Parliament the rules mean it only requires one MP to shout “object” to block a bill’s progress once time for debate has concluded at 2.30pm on a Friday.

His actions have been widely criticised, with his Conservative colleagues taking to WhatsApp to vent their frustrations with one calling him a “total irrelevance and yesterday’s guy”.

So who is he?

Chope, who was born in Putney, has been an MP for over 25 years. He was educated at the prestigious Marlborough College, before attending Queen’s College at the University of St Andrews. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1972.

Chope, a eurosceptic, has held various positions within the Conservative party. He has been MP for Christchurch since 1997 but prior to that he was the MP for Southampton Itchen between 1983 and 1992 before losing his seat to Labour.

His decision to block the upskirting bill is not the first time he has hit the headlines.

In 2009 the father-of-two was caught up in the expenses scandal when it was revealed that he had claimed £136,992 in parliamentary expenses, including £881 to repair a sofa.

That same year, he called for the minimum wage to be abolished, arguing that it would decrease unemployment.

He came under fire again in 2013 for referring to some of the staff in the House of Commons as “servants”.

Later that year he voted against the legislation for same-sex marriage.

Also that year, he was one of four MPs who camped outside an office in Parliament for four nights in order to highjack an obscure parliamentary procedure to table 42 bills, which formed what they called an “Alternative Queen’s Speech”.

Among the proposals were the reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription, privatising the BBC and banning the burka in public places.

They also wanted to scrap wind farm subsidies, end the ringfence for foreign aid spending and rename the late August Bank Holiday “Margaret Thatcher Day”.

In 2014 Chope along with six other Conservative MPs voted against the Equal Pay (Transparency) Bill.

He is known for blocking and filibustering of bills including raising an eleventh-hour objection to the Hillsborough debate taking place, objecting to the second reading of the Alan Turing Bill to grant him a pardon and repeatedly blocking a bill that would ban the use of wild animals in circus performances.

Chope, a private landlord, filibustered a bill which had cross party support intended to make revenge evictions an offence

In 2015, joined fellow Tory MPs Philip Davies and David Nuttall in extended speeches, known as a filibuster, against a private member’s bill that would have placed restrictions on hospital parking charges for carers, causing the bill to run out of time.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/christopher-chope-upskirting-bill_uk_5b23e1e1e4b0a0a5277b1fa6

“School In Theresa May’s Constituency Asks Parents To Donate Toilet Paper And Stationery”

“A school in Theresa May’s constituency has asked parents for donations of essential items such as toilet roll, stationery and blue tac.

St Edmund Campion Catholic Primary School in Maidenhead, Berkshire, sent parents an email including a link to an Amazon wish list on Monday detailing items they could buy to help its 420 pupils.

Catherine del Campo, whose 10-year-old daughter attends the school, told HuffPost UK she was “extremely concerned” to receive the email. “I felt that if this is happening to our school it must be happening elsewhere,” she said.

The mum has already donated toilet paper and plasters to the school and says other parents have also been “incredibly supportive”. “I haven’t heard a single parent blaming the school, although I’m aware others have questioned the school’s role in this,” she said.

Cornish coastal village shows the way on second homes

“Mevagissey is following St Ives’ lead to stop too many properties becoming second homes.

Residents of the Cornish fishing port voted overwhelmingly in favour of adopting the “primary residence policy” in yesterday’s referendum, making it the fifth place in the county to decide that newly-built homes should only be available to people living there permanently.

A third of eligible voters turned out – 90% voted in favour.

When you get up to one in four of the properties being a second home, you can’t deny the right of people to sell to additional homeowners. All we’re trying to do is to discourage the development of more second homes by putting this restriction on new builds.”
Garth Shephard
Mevagissey Parish Councillor”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-44366793

A lesson from pre-application planning advice on how to by-pass local objections, Historic England and the EDDC Development Management Committee

There is a very contentious planning application, an amended version of a second application, on a site in the heart of one of our historic villages.  It is in a conservation area, surrounded by listed buildings where the village has an adopted neighbourhood plan. The Grade 1 listed church overlooks the site.

obj.pdf_DocNo=3035887&PDF=true&content=obj 2

The Parish Council oppose this application because the application does not conform to the aspirations and policies within the Neighbourhood Plan. The main priority of parishioners is the preservation of the overall character of the built heritage. The Neighbourhood Plan requires new buildings should “…..respect the local character” and preferably natural traditional building materials and methods should be used. (The proposed two dwellings are contemporary with flat sedum roofs).

Historic England (watchdog of our historic environment) said, in Feb 2018, of the first application:

“… the site in question, sits to the west and is made up of two linear fields that run parallel to the road behind the dwellings. Due to their size and close association to the built environment, it is believed these may have been paddocks for livestock and were potentially connected to the pub.

In recent years, development has occurred to the east in the form of modern bungalows and housing estates. However, these fields act as an indicator of the former rural landscape that characterised the setting of [the village].

A pre-application enquiry has been undertaken with the council, who consider that some form of development may be acceptable on the site. We would highlight the importance of the site as an extant aspect of the former rural setting of the conservation area as well as the contribution it makes in terms of appreciating the former uses of the land and how the development interacted with its rural setting. Therefore, its development would result in some erosion of that quality, which contributes to the significance of the conservation area.”

In spite of this cautionary advice it appears from pre-application correspondence published on EDDC web site that EDDC planners want to facilitate development by ignoring all this, squaring the Councillors and by-passing the DMC.

Applicant’s agent to planning officer e-mail (March 2018):

“We talked about how the application would proceed from this point on, and [X- planning officer] advised that he felt that the team would be supportive of the application, though [sic] that the town council would object as they did before. This would mean that the application would need to go the Chairman’s briefing for delegated approval.

“The process works that when a parish or town council differ in opinion to that of a planning team (planning recommendation report for approval) then the chairman of the planning committee (who meets once a week) would make the decision if the planning report should be followed, and delegated approval is granted, or if it should go to committee [sic].

“The district councillor (Cllr [Y] plus 2 others) will also have a say, though they did not object last time to the two houses, and I [architectural agent for applicant] will be meeting with the Cllr this time to ensure that he understands the application, and the reason for the second application as the district Cllr is allowed to sit in and vote on the delegated chairman’s briefing.”

Historic England continue their concern (May 2018):

“We maintain reservations in respect of the proposal. The orientation of the buildings within the site, their scale and associated ground works to address this issue of height, results in a significant intervention that does not respond to the character and appearance of the conservation area, through the scale and massing of the proposal and its orientation within the plot……..”

And Historic England’s final comment is:

ou could add at the end the final Historic England recommendation:

Recommendation

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice.

Chances of that happening? Owl isn’t taking any bets!

Ottery Health Matters! Meeting 29 June 2018, afternoon and evening

Ottery St Mary & District Health & Care Forum, in partnership with:
RD&E, Coleridge GP’s, NEWCCG, Devon County Council, East Devon District Council & Ottery St Mary Town Council

Ottery Health Matters!

Health and Wellbeing Community Information Event

Date: Friday 29th June 2018

Time: Two drop-in sessions
2pm – 5pm
6pm – 8pm

Venue: The Institute, Yonder Street, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1HD.

Come along to this informal drop-in event to find out about the care and support available in Ottery and the surrounding areas. It will be a great opportunity to talk to health and care experts plus volunteers about the local services and activities to help people live well.

We need to hear from you about what’s important to you, what you think the challenges and priorities are to improve health and care for people in our community now and in the future.

Refreshments will be provided. Transport to and from may also be available. For any queries or feedback please contact:

Elli Pang via e-mail: ellipang@btinternet.com or Tel: 01404 812268 or Leigh Edwards via e-mail: leighp3@sourcemode.com or Tel: 01404 814889

Teignbridge Council CEO given £264,000 to push off – now working for West Sussex on £138,000 plus perks

“A council chief executive was given a golden handshake of more than £250,000 in a deal that bosses tried to keep secret to avoid causing her “unnecessary or unjustified distress”.

Nicola Bulbeck, 60, left Teignbridge district council in Devon last summer after 11 years’ service. The council had repeatedly refused to reveal how much she received but its draft annual accounts disclosed yesterday that the former barrister left with a £264,000 “exit package”.

It was also revealed that she was allowed to stay on until the day after the general election last year so that she could earn a further £30,000 for being the returning officer.

After leaving the local authority she was appointed an executive director at West Sussex county council last January on an annual salary of £138,000.
There has been concern about a “revolving door” of senior local authority staff receiving significant payoffs before moving to similar jobs.
Several Teignbridge district councillors have alleged that Ms Bulbeck kept her company car as part of the leaving package. The council has declined to comment on the claim.

Phil Shears, who replaced Ms Bulbeck, had defended the decision not to release details of her payout when she departed. He claimed that the disclosure would “cause unnecessary or unjustified distress or damage” to his predecessor. Mr Shears was appointed the council’s managing director on a salary of £94,656, considerably less than Ms Bulbeck earned. Ms Bulbeck had been criticised for accepting a 12 per cent pay rise that took her annual pay packet from £126,000 to almost £142,000.

The district council and the Information Commissioner’s Office rejected several attempts by the Mid-Devon Advertiser to unearth Ms Bulbeck’s settlement. The accounts show that she received £173,091 “compensation for loss of employment” as part of her exit package”.

Jeremy Christophers, the council’s Conservative leader, said: “We have followed strict council policy and abided by the legal advice given.”

Gordon Hook, a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: “The leaving packages for some senior officers at local authorities are nothing short of obscene in the eyes of many. My view is that the general public have every right to know how their council tax is spent.”

Ms Bulbeck was not available for comment yesterday.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Devon and Somerset – a new Klondike gold rush?

The LEP housing numbers, anticipating 50,000 new households in Devon, are almost certainly driven in part by the heroic assumptions about the local economy, as Owl has pointed out many times.

As we know, the LEP assumption is 4% growth per annum for the next 18 years. Such a sustained economic boom would invoke a ‘Klondike’ style immigration rush into Devon and Somerset, as the economies of all of the rest of the western world failed to compete with us at that level.

East Devon’s current Local Plan is based upon an anticipated annual UK economic growth rate of 3% from 2007, which has turned out to be just over 1%.

This, of course, is why many of our employment sites are dormant (and one of the many reasons why we do not need a new site in Sidford), and all our town centres are struggling – there simply isn’t demand.

Even if economic growth was to average 3% growth from now until the end of the Plan period, which looks incredibly optimistic, we would still have 33% more employment land than we need, according to East Devon’s own numbers.

The LEP’s projections have been laughed at by everyone – especially, Owl gathers, in Whitehall.

But they feed into a whole raft of housing and economic projections, that will ultimately emerge as policy around the region.

What assumption will be used for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) projections, Owl wonders? Now delayed until after the next local council elections in 2019?

Will the GESP team dare to condemn the LEP numbers, or will they adopt them, even when they must know they are nonsense?

What might happen if those without vested interests in the growth of expensive housing in the area were for once denied a say due to conflict of interest?

And where are the signs of the revisions of our Local Plan, based on current realities, that are required every 5 years?

“Fury as housing associations redevelop and sell affordable homes”

“Housing associations have made at least £82.3m from auctioning homes in five London boroughs since 2013, according to figures seen by the Guardian. Analysis by the Labour MP for Westminster North, Karen Buck, shows that Westminster, Brent, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea sold 153 properties at auction through Savills estate agents – with more than half in Westminster where sales totalled £36.4m. The true figures are likely to be much higher as the data only covers sales made by one agency. The auctions are part of a wider trend of some housing associations selling off social housing in expensive central London to fund new developments, which tenants say are unaffordable or far removed from their families, schools and work.

Buck says: “I’m dealing with a family who are statutorily overcrowded and in the highest medical priority and I haven’t been able to get them moved in over eight years. That’s because housing associations [in general] say they don’t have the stock in the area and yet they’re still selling off homes.”

Nationally, sales of housing association social homes to the private sector have more than tripled since 2001, with 3,891 social homes sold in 2016. Overall, more than 150,000 homes for social rent have been lost since 2012. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/13/fury-affordable-homes-redeveloped-sold-housing-associations

By 2036 one-third of people in Devon will be over 65 – but don’t worry, they will have PLENTY of houses available!

Owl is puzzled. Our Local Enterprise Partnership says we need 50,000 new homes in the next 5 years (published in 2017 – so say until 2023):

Click to access SEP-Final-draft-31-03-14-website-1.pdf

(page 8)

Yet the Office for National Statistics says that the population of Devon will increase by just over 52,000 by 2026 (see below). Averaging a very low estimate of low 2 people per home that would mean we would need 26,000 new homes IN TOTAL in Devon in the next 8 years, not 50,000.

In fact, the same Office of National Statistics says average occupancy is 2.4 persons per household – so a more accurate figure would be 21,666 extra homes needed in Devon by 2026 – again NOT 50,000!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2017

Someone has their sums badly wrong. 50,000 by 2023 or 21,666 by 2026.

Is it the Office of National Statistics or our LEP with its preponderance of developers and landowners?

“The population of Devon will increase by 52,100 by 2026, according to the Office for National Statistics.

In 2016 the population was 778,800. By 2026 it is expected to reach 830,900, a rise of 6.7%.

Every two years the ONS estimates how the population of England will change over the next 25 years.

Statisticians study birth and death rates, and look at how the county’s population is ageing.

In Devon the percentage of the population made up by pensioners is expected to rise from 24.8% in 2016 to 27.6% 10 years later. And by 2036 the ONS thinks over 65s will make up almost a third of the area’s residents. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/population-devon-grow-52100-1667958

“Crest Nicholson to close London office and build more ‘flat pack’ houses as costs bite”

So sad that their profit margin has dropped from 20.3% to 18%! In 2017 Crest Nicholson’s chief executive, Stephen Stone, was set to receive a share bonus worth almost £812,000, on top of a salary of £541,158, while chief operating officer Patrick Bergin was set to net £562,500, in addition to pay of £375,000.

Maybe that’s where their profits are going … just a thought …

And better not anticipate any affordable housing in their “flat pack” developments!

“Housebuilder Crest Nicholson is feeling the pinch of rising construction costs and a slower housing market, prompting it to close its Central London office and expand production of so-called “flatpack” housing structures.

In its half-year results, Crest Nicholson said that it expects its margins to be around 18pc for the full year compared with 20.3pc last year – and at the lower end of its 18pc to 20pc range – due to the “generally flat” pricing environment.

Shares in the FTSE 250 housebuilder fell more than 7pc in morning trade. …”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/06/12/crest-nicholsons-margins-squeezed-rising-costs/

“Pensioner households paying out nearly £9bn in income tax per year”

“Households with one or more people who are past state pension age are paying out nearly £9bn in income tax a year, analysis has found.

Of the 8.7m so called pensioner households in the UK, 1.4m of them contain a worker generating taxable income.

The research by pension and investment provider Aegon found that the number of people still working past state pension age had increased from 12 per cent in 1997/98 to 17 per cent today.

A growth in people working past pension age was accompanied by a rise in average earnings, as pensioner couples saw their weekly wages after inflation increase 30 per cent from £410 to £534 today.

Steven Cameron, pensions director at Aegon said:

“Gone are the days when reaching state pension age meant a total end to work. Many people are choosing to keep working and earning, perhaps by cutting back gradually on the amount of work they do, even once they’ve started taking their pension.

These people are contributing significant amounts to the nation’s finances through the tax they generate while also helping the broader economy through their work.”

Cameron also said that despite the current climate being favourable for pensioners, with many living on decent incomes, this “golden era for pensioners” could not last forever.

“Both final salary pensions and inflation busting increases to the state pension are unlikely to continue indefinitely so it’s important that society is changing with more people able to choose to work past traditional retirement ages,” he added.”

http://www.cityam.com/287427/pensioner-households-paying-out-nearly-gbp9bn-income-tax

“Bank Closures Can Be Devastating For Disabled Customers – Where Is Their Support?”

Dr Lisa Cameron SNP MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow:

“… Whilst it is true that online banking has opened the doors for many, it has also shut the door to others. The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Disability, which I chair, has recently published research revealing the devastating impact bank closures have on disabled customers, for whom the alternate services are found to be both inaccessible and inadequate.

The banking industry must stop leaving disabled people behind as they move forward with their plans. This is a customer-led industry, and this industry is simply failing a sector of society. I’m inclined to point out that if this group of customers were perhaps, wealthy business owners, the service they offer would improve remarkably quicker.

90% of disabled people surveyed in the Disability APPG’s inquiry reported that their use of bank services had already suffered due to the branch closures. Some now have to travel for up to three hours to be able to do their banking at an accessible branch, and others reported being forced to be more reliant on family and friends, losing a sense of their independence. One even said: “My wife has to find time off work to take me [to the bank]”.

These problems are only going to increase as branch closures continue to roll out. While online banking may be presented as a solution for those with mobility disabilities, it is not a complete solution by itself. 93% of respondents to the APPG’s survey felt that online banking services are not a “sufficiently accessible and a satisfactory alternative”. For those with visual, cognitive, memory and learning disabilities, the complexity of online banking and the need to remember passwords and “memorable information” make it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. Many elderly disabled people also lack the necessary internet connection and technical skills. And, of course, doing something like paying in cash to your account still requires an actual branch anyway.

The overall image is that the move to online banking cannot be made in its entirety. Accordingly, some banks have also started to offer mobile bank replacement services – vans that travel around local areas providing a temporary replacement for areas without a permanent branch. According to the inquiry, however, only 12% of survey respondents who had experience with the mobile replacements found them to be an appropriate replacement.

Firstly, the vans used for this mobile service were frequently described as inaccessible, having large stairs that require individuals to climb into. Secondly, many respondees reported that the services offered by these mobile replacements are “extremely limited”, and that the vans did not stay long enough in each place.

All in all, the inquiry indicates that disabled people are significantly and disproportionately disadvantaged by the closure of physical bank branches. For some disabled people, anything other than face-to-face banking is an impracticable and stressful experience, and the only real solution is to retain access to physical bank branches or provide, well-located alternatives with the full range of services.

This failure to account for disabled people is not only a disservice to valuable customers, but may also breach the law. The Equality Act 2010 requires public bodies not to put disabled people at a “significant disadvantage” if they can avoid this by taking “reasonable” steps. The closures, for many respondents, cause extensive difficulties and have left them isolated and dependent, unable to access vital services that are important to everybody, and the alternatives provided are clearly insufficient.

Disability groups have done the job of the UK Government once again and proposed solutions to this problem; community banks. These accessible and well-located buildings can house a number of different banks under one roof, reducing the costs to the banks to keep branches open. Whilst banks in competition with one another might resist such plans, perhaps the needs of the customer for once could take precedent.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bank-closures_uk_5b1ff1e9e4b09d7a3d7797b5

“Just look at housing to see the true cost of privatisation”

“Council homes are being sold off far more quickly than new social homes are being built, a new report has warned. The research into the government’s right-to-buy scheme, by the Local Government Association, finds that this has been the case since 2012: at no point has the social housebuilding rate matched, or come close to matching, the rate at which homes are being sold.

Right to buy was given a boost by the Conservatives after the 2010 election in an attempt to sell even more homes, since traditionally homeowners tend to vote Tory. In 2013, the then chancellor, George Osborne, announced the maximum discount available for those renting a council home in London would rise to £100,000. In effect he’d approved the asset-stripping of some of our most-needed council stock.

But right to buy needs to be viewed for its long-term effects, and not just with regard to how it helped those families who bought their council homes in the 1980s and 90s. Today, 40% of the homes sold under the scheme are rented privately at far higher rents than local authorities would ever charge. Right to buy has become right to buy to let.

Across the country, home ownership is in crisis, with renting exorbitantly expensive and young people especially – even those in professional jobs – being priced out of the market. Their earnings disappear into the pockets of private landlords, while the finances of local government are given a kicking.

Council housing works because it pays for itself relatively quickly: the rent paid by tenants covers the building costs in the long term, and eventually makes a profit for the local authority, which continues to invest in the local area. The money continues to circulate within the community rather than simply boosting the profits of landlords.

But with councils forced to sell to tenants through right to buy, then being obliged to give a chunk of the receipts straight to Whitehall, building becomes ever more difficult. And the property shortfall is expensive, as authorities struggle to house their homeless residents. Last year £8.4m was spent by 23 councils to rent 725 flats as temporary accommodation, the magazine Inside Housing found. A vast transfer of wealth has taken place from the public to the private sector, under the guise of helping the aspirational working class. Instead, we’ve just made it harder to provide housing for those most in need.

The folly of right to buy echoes the mess that is Britain’s rail system. In the mid-90s, John Major – echoing Margaret Thatcher’s disdain for the state a decade earlier – believed that breaking up British Rail would create competition, and that competition would ensure greater services and be far more efficient than control by the bloated state. Instead, the cost of train travel has become exorbitant, the service appalling almost everywhere you attempt to travel, and the state is constantly required to intervene – either because a franchise has collapsed, in the case of the east coast mainline, or because the rail service has become chaotic, witness recent weeks in the north and the south-east.

The long-term effects of privatising both rail and housing, aside from ensuring we live in a country of crumbling infrastructure (in contrast to mainland Europe), is one of diminished social and personal opportunities. Many people are unable to see friends and family as often as they’d like due to the cost of rail travel. Others are delaying having children, or wondering if they can afford them at all, since they cannot afford to buy a home and landlords can be hostile to children. Those with children are in no better position: well oOverMore than 100,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, usually due to eviction.

Right to buy was popular, but with 1.8m council homes having been sold off, there are now about 750,000 households paying far more than a local authority rent. Housing, not buying, should be a right – and available and affordable for all. Right to buy is devastating our housing system, just as rail privatisation has devastated our transport infrastructure.

Privatisation rarely works: we need new ideas, and far more public ownership of housing, infrastructure and utilities, if we wish to provide for our citizens.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/12/housing-true-cost-privatisation-right-to-buy-landlords

Adult social care on its last wobbly, fragile knees

“Social care services for vulnerable adults are on the verge of collapse in some areas of England, despite the provision of extra government funding, senior council officials have warned.

The fragile state of many council social care budgets – coupled with growing demand for services, increasing NHS pressure, and spiralling staff costs – is highlighted in research by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services(Adass).

It says councils “cannot go on” without a sustainable long-term funding strategy to underpin social care and warns that continuing cuts to budgets risk leaving thousands of people who need care being left without services.

“The overall picture is of a sector struggling to meet need and maintain quality in the context of rising costs, increasingly complex care needs, a fragile provider market and pressures from an NHS which itself is in critical need of more funding,” the annual “state of the nation” survey says.

It reveals English councils plan to push through social care cuts of £700m in 2018-19, equivalent to nearly 5% of the total £14.5bn budget. Since 2010, social care spending in England has shrunk by £7bn.

A government green paper on adult social care funding is expected in the next few weeks, and while councils are hopeful this could put budgets on a firmer footing over time, they warn that extra funding is needed to shore up services in the short term.

“Social care is essentially about making sure we not only look after people with profound and increasingly complex needs, but also help many transform their lives. Sadly, however, this budget survey reveals, once again this essential care and support is just not being given the resources it needs,” said the president of Adass, Glen Garrod.

He added: “We cannot go on like this. How we help people live the life they want, how we care and support people in our families and communities, and how we ensure carers get the support they need is at stake – it’s time for us to deliver the secure future that so very many people in need of social care urgently need.”

A government spokesperson said: “We know the social care system is under pressure — that’s why we’ve provided an extra £9.4bn over three years. We will shortly set out our plans to reform the system, which will include the workforce and a sustainable funding model supported by a diverse, vibrant and stable market.”

The Adass survey says the social care market is “increasingly fragile and failing” in some parts of the country, with almost a third of councils reporting that residential and nursing home care providers have closed down or handed back contracts.

Although councils are spending an increasing proportion of their total budget on adult social care – almost 38p in every pound in 2018-19, compared with 34p in 2010 – social care directors admit they will have to continue to reduce the number of people in receipt of care packages.

The survey reveals councils are increasingly reliant on so-called “self help” or “asset-based” approaches to care – in effect using networks of family and neighbourhood groups to provide volunteer support for some social care recipients.

Half of local authorities overspent on adult social care budgets in 2017-18, the survey finds, with half of these drawing on council reserves to meet the overspend.

The National Audit Office has warned that about 10% of councils will exhaust reserves in three years at current rates of deployment, putting them at risk of insolvency.

Ministers acknowledged the financial crisis facing council adult social care services last year, when they provided £2.6 billion, enabling councils to raise extra social care funds locally through a council tax precept.

Adass says this injection of cash helped stave off financial collapse in some council areas. But it warns that the additional funding has “temporarily relieved, rather than resolved” the long-term funding needs of the sector and there is a danger council services could collapse before any new arrangements are in place.

Although councils have a legal duty to ensure there is a functioning care market in their area, nearly four in five say they are concerned that they are unable to guarantee this because of the fragility of many care firm balance sheets and rising care staff wage bills.

Councillor Izzi Seccombe, the chair of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said: “Councils and providers are doing all they can to help ensure older and disabled people receive high quality care, but unless immediate action is taken to tackle increasingly overstretched council budgets, the adult social care tipping point, which we have long warned about, will be breached and councils risk not being able to fulfil their statutory duty under the Care Act.”

Richard Murray, the director of policy at The King’s Fund, said: “This latest evidence, from every council in England, lays bare once again the need for, as the prime minister put it herself, a proper plan to pay for and provide social care.

“Older and disabled people and their families and carers continue to be let down by a system that is on its knees.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/12/adult-social-care-services-collapse-survey-england-council

“Downing Street Accused Of Burying Electoral Commission Investigation Into Theresa May’s Advisors”

“Downing Street has been accused of pushing through key Brexit votes before MPs know the result of an investigation into whether Theresa May’s advisors broke the law during the EU Referendum

Stephen Parkinson, the PM’s political secretary, and Cleo Watson – also a Downing Street staffer – are both being investigated by the Electoral Commission as part of an inquiry into whether the official Brexit campaign broke spending limits.

The investigation was launched in November, but the Electoral Commission has now presented its findings to those under investigation. They have 28 days to provide a response to the conclusion before the report is made public.

Labour’s Deputy Leader Tom Watson is questioning if the votes on the EU Withdrawal Bill – planned for Tuesday and Wednesday – are being rushed through before MPs have the chance to consider the results of the investigation.

He said: “Each day the plot thickens about the murky dealings of the various Brexit campaigns.

“Now it seems senior figures at the heart of Number 10 who were involved in Vote Leave could have been informed about the contents of this important Electoral Commission investigation long before anyone else.

“If that’s true Number 10 would have had time to plan and even ensure key Brexit votes like the ones this week could happen before the investigation
should really still be shaping and taking decisions at the heart of Government.”

The investigation centres around payments made by Vote Leave to clear debts of £625,000 run up by university student Darren Grimes with the digital campaign company AggregateIQ Data.

Grimes – who ran the BeLeave group – was allowed by electoral law to spend £700,000 in the campaign.

As the official campaign group, Vote Leave could spend £7million, and if it had commissioned and spent that £625,000 itself it would have breached the spending limits.

The Electoral Commission initially accepted the Vote Leave argument that it had donated the money to Grimes, despite settling the bill with AggregateIQ directly.

A separate group, Veterans for Britain, also received £100,000 from Vote Leave.

But in November it reopened its investigation, claiming new information had come to light.

Downing Street is drawn into the investigation as Stephen Parkinson – the PM’s Political Secretary – was National Organiser for Vote Leave during the referendum campaign.

He is accused by former Vote Leave volunteer Shahmir Sanni of directing how BeLeave should spend money – something which would be a breach of electoral law.

In March, Parkinson revealed he and Sanni had been in a relationship as part of his denial, prompting Sanni to claim his family in Pakistan – who did not know he was gay – were forced to take “urgent protective measures” for their own safety.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/downing-street-brexit-electoral-commission_uk_5b1e58a0e4b0adfb826bbe6e?guccounter=1