District councils say they are being starved of most government funding

“The fair funding review will fail unless any reforms come with more money for local government, an umbrella-group has warned.

The Local Government Association said funding cuts had forced councils to divert ever-dwindling resources from other services to prop up adult social care and children’s services.

“Ultimately, the review will not be successful and lead to a sustainable outcome if it is not introduced alongside additional resources,” the LGA wrote in their response to the fair funding consultation, which ended on Monday.

“We estimate that councils face a funding gap of over £5bn by the end of the decade, on top of a £1.3bn pressure to stabilise the adult social care provider market.”

It called for 100% retention of business rates to try to plug the gap. The government confirmed in the draft local government settlement in December last year it is reducing the amount of grant it gives to councils and will allow them to keep 75% of business rates by 2020-21.

But the LGA said business rates retention and the calculation methodology for the four-year settlement had introduced “further layers of opacity” to a system already complicated by the use of 15 formulae and 120 indicators.

“It is positive that the government is attempting to reduce the number of cost drivers and formulae used in the relative needs assessment,” the LGA said. “It is important that complexity is only added where it is unavoidable and where it has a material positive impact on fairness.

“However, the right number of formulae and cost drivers must ultimately be driven by evidence or the outcome will not be seen as ‘fair’.”

The County Councils Network said any new formula arising from the review “must be capable of addressing spikes in demand for social care services”.

Its finance spokesperson Nick Rushton, leader of Leicestershire County Council, said: “This is a once in a generation opportunity to reform the system for the better.

“If we focus on the evidence and avoid introducing unnecessary complexity we may actually make something that stands the test of time. If not we will be back here sooner than we think.”

The District Councils Network said most districts would stop receiving revenue support grant by 2019-20 and were “continuing to see reductions in their core spending power for the whole period, compared to other councils who are all seeing an increase”. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/03/local-government-funding-changes-will-fail-without-extra-resources

“Austerity will have cast an extra 1.5m children into poverty by 2021”

“An extra 1.5 million children will have been pitched into poverty by 2021 as a consequence of the government’s austerity programme, according to a study of the impact of tax and benefit policy by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The EHRC study forecasts dramatic increases in poverty rates among children in lone parent and minority ethnic households, families with disabled children and households with three or more children.

There are clear winners and losers from austerity tax and benefits changes since 2010, the study says. The regressive nature of the policies means that low-income families have been hit hardest: the poorest fifth will lose 10% of income by 2021, while the wealthiest fifth will see little or no change. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/14/austerity-will-have-cast-an-extra-15m-children-into-poverty-by-2021

Rural extra-fast broadband grants exclude East Devon

“Thirteen areas win funding for broadband

Thirteen areas have been awarded a share of £95 million to help with the rollout of ultrafast broadband – which delivers internet speeds of up to 1GB per second – which is currently only available to three per cent of the population. The successful bidders include Manchester, London, Blackpool, Cambridgeshire, Coventry, Mid Sussex, North Yorkshire, Portsmouth and Wolverhampton.”
Source: i p10

and full list:
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/03/brief-summary-13-new-uk-full-fibre-local-network-projects.html

“Councils forced to sell off parks, buildings and art to fund basic services”

Of course, some councils (naming no names) positively relish selling off the family silver to fund such things as posh new HQ … and note the bit about “transforming services” … a phrase our council adores!

“On Friday, the government-appointed inspector sent in to examine Northamptonshire county council’s books after it went effectively bankrupt is due to publish his report on what went wrong.

While he may identify some failings that can be laid at the council’s door alone, in reality Northamptonshire merely had the dubious honour of last month becoming the first local authority since 1998 to be unable to balance its books. According to last week’s report by the government’s spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, there are around 15 councils that could follow suit in the next three years. The most likely contenders seem to be the Tory-run Surrey, Somerset, Lancashire and Norfolk county councils.

The NAO’s analysis highlights the financial predicament facing councils across England. Government funding has fallen by nearly 50% since 2010. Combined with increased demand for adult and children’s social care and homelessness services, as well as paying higher national insurance contributions for staff, implementing the “national living wage” and the apprenticeship levy, growing numbers of unitary and county councils are relying on their reserves to balance their budgets, the watchdog found.

If current rates of spending continue, the NAO calculates that 10% of social care authorities will have exhausted their reserves within the next three years, while more than 20% will have depleted them within four to five years. A recent survey by the Local Government Information Unit thinktank (LGIU) found that 80% of councils were concerned about their finances. Having already slashed spending on management, administration and non-statutory services, as well as raising council tax, local authorities are desperately trying to find sources of revenue. Most plan to increase or introduce charges for services such as parking, garden waste disposal, burials, planning, home care and meals on wheels. With no financial lifeline from the chancellor, Philip Hammond, in his spring statement on Tuesday, many are also having to sell off their assets to raise cash.

Although councils have long been able to sell school playing fields, swimming pools and leisure centres, they were previously barred from using money from building or land sales to fund frontline services. But since 2016, the government has allowed them to invest the proceeds of assets sold by April 2019 in “transforming” frontline services. This has given councils a greater incentive to flog assets. According to the NAO, in the year to April 2017, £118.5m of such capital receipts were used in this way.

Northamptonshire’s proposed sell-off of its new £53m HQ has been widely reported. But numerous other councils are hoping to sell their historic town halls, from Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire, to Southall in west London and Shotley Bridge in County Durham. Until last month Broxtowe borough council in Nottingham had also planned to sell Beeston town hall to developers, but in the face of fierce local opposition it is now inviting bids from those interested in making alternative use of the building.

“It’s a historic building which has been the civic centre for Beeston since 1936 and represents a lot for the people,” says Matt Turpin, a project and communications manager at Nottingham Unesco City of Literature and the co-founder of a blog about Beeston. “The locals are hugely against it. The council ran a consultation last year and 94% said they were against demolition.” A spokeswoman for the council says shortlisted proposals will be asked to submit business plans before a full council meeting makes a final decision.

With buoyant land values, it is hardly surprising that council-owned parks are vulnerable. Knowsley council in Merseyside is planning to sell 17 parks to developers for an estimated £40m. This will be used to create a charitable trust that will fund all future maintenance and upkeep of its remaining parks. The council will no longer fund parks and green spaces after 2019. After its 2018 budget was approved last week, the plans will now go before the scrutiny committee before a final decision later this year.

Knowsley is far from alone. More than half of cash-strapped councils in the north-west of England are considering selling their parks or finding other organisations to maintain them.

A 2018 parks survey being published on Thursday by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) reveals that 85% of cash-strapped councils expect to cut parks and green spaces funding. Paul O’Brien, APSE’s chief executive, says this is a false economy. “While divesting parks may seem like a quick solution to financial pressures, in the long term we lose a valuable community asset that can generate a real return for local places and local people, he says.

“If we want to create healthy, active communities, develop attractive public realms to bring in new businesses and jobs, and safeguard the environment, then parks are the answer not the problem.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/14/councils-forced-sell-parks-buildings-art-fund-basic-services

Another new unitary council approved – to save money

Owl says: how long can Devon hold out? And should it?

“The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has said he is “minded to” back the proposal for a single new unitary council in Buckinghamshire.

In a written ministerial statement Sajid Javid said he had chosen the structure proposed by Buckinghamshire County Council ahead of a proposal for two unitaries put forward by the district councils of Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, High Wycombe, and South Bucks.

The latter plan would have seen one council for the area of Aylesbury Vale and the other for the remainder of the current county area.

Javid’s decision is subject to Parliamentary approval and further discussions.

The Secretary of State said: “I am satisfied that this new single council, if established, is likely to improve local government and service delivery in the county, generating savings, increasing financial resilience, facilitating a more strategic and holistic approach to planning and housing challenges, and sustaining good local services. I am also satisfied that across Buckinghamshire as a whole there is a good deal of local support for this new council, and that the area of the council represents a credible geography.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34517%3Ajavid-backs-plans-for-single-new-unitary-for-buckinghamshire&catid=59&Itemid=27

Conservatives and Russians … and Saudis … and Quataris

Owen Jones, Guardian:

“The Conservative party is in the pocket of foreign powers that represent a threat to the national security of Britain. It is a grotesquely under-reported national scandal, lost amid a hysterical Tory campaign to delegitimise the Labour party with false allegations of treason. If Labour had received £820,000 from Russian-linked oligarchs and companies in the past 20 months – and indeed £3m since 2010 – the media outrage would be deafening. But this is the Tory party, so there are no cries of treachery, of being in league with a hostile foreign power, of threatening the nation’s security.

When questioned about the Russian donations to the Tory party, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, pointedly refused to return the money. “There are people in this country who are British citizens, who are of Russian origin,” he protested. “I don’t think we should taint them, or should tar them, with Putin’s brush.” How noble: a Tory challenging the demonisation of migrants.

Before we get out the bunting, though, let’s look at one donation as an example. It was 2014, and Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Russia’s former deputy finance minister, paid the princely sum of £160,000 to play tennis with David Cameron and Boris Johnson. In total, since 2012 – when the Electoral Commission initially declared her an “impermissible donor”, before subsequently allowing her to donate – she has handed the Tories £514,000.

I put it to you gently that if Labour took half a million pounds from the wife of a former Cuban minister, there would be no debate about whether this represented a scandalous financial relationship with the Cuban regime. Other examples include £400,000 from Gérard Lopez, a businessmen on the board of a company that partnered with Russian banks that had sanctions imposed on them during the Ukraine crisis.

It goes further than that. By last October, Tory MPs had received four times more money from Russia’s state-run Russia Today TV channel than Labour MPs: it is welcome that the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has said that his colleagues should no longer appear on the channel. The Conservative party is notoriously dependent on donations from the financial sector. The tens of millions of pounds poured into the Tories’ war chest are not offered as acts of charity and munificence.

In 2011, for example, the Financial Times reported that “even donors admit that Tory MPs’ desire to cut the 50p top rate of income tax is because these rich City donors are so close to the party”. This same City of London is awash with dodgy money from Russia. No wonder, then, that in 2014 a secret government document revealed plans to stop any sanctions against Russia that might damage the City. Labour has attempted to introduce legislation that could prevent certain Russian individuals entering Britain or block their assets: how mysterious, then, that the Tories blocked it for “technical reasons”.

Then there are the links to other regimes that combine contempt for human rights with a threat to our national security. Take Saudi Arabia, ruled by a totalitarian, fanatical regime that likes to slice the heads off gay men and dissidents, which treats women with what can only be described as barbarism, and which exports international extremism. In the two years or so after it began bombing Yemen – including with British weapons – Tory MPs received £99,396 from the Saudi regime in the form of gifts, travel expenses and consultancy fees. Hammond was one of them: he received a watch worth nearly two grand from the Saudi ambassador.

In the past five years, moreover, Saudi Arabia and other autocracies spent £700,000 on luxury trips for MPs, more than 80% of whom were Tories. Just under £200,000 of that was money from Saudi Arabia to pay for the excursions of 41 MPs, 40 of whom were Conservatives. Now why would they possibly be doing that? Could it be – given that MPs receive nothing from our democratic allies for such trips – that this is part of a clear PR offensive, an attempt to secure influence over the Conservative government?

Indeed, Rehman Chishti – the newly appointed vice-chair of the Conservative party for communities – received £2,000 a month from the Riyadh-based King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies between March 2016 and January 2018. Although the parliamentary commissioner for standards saw no reason to take action, it is worth noting his rampant pro-Saudi dictatorship sympathies. His Twitter feed includes boasting of being congratulated by the Saudi dictator for being re-elected as an MP in 2015, hosting lectures by Saudi officials, and leading Tory parliamentary delegations to Saudi Arabia. His colleague, Daniel Kawczynski, goes on TV to justify the barbaric Saudi assault on Yemen, crows about writing the “most pro-Saudi book ever written by a British politician”, but then threatened to sue when this was linked with went on a trip worth £6,722.14 paid for by the Saudi regime.

Litvinenko widow warns Tories over Russian donations
And then there is the Tories’ financial heart. The Qatari dictatorship owns three times more property in London than the Queen, and more than the mayoralty. Indeed, the Qatar Investment Authority owns Canary Wharf, the Shard and Harrods. Let’s be clear: the Qatari regime has backed extremist and terrorist organisations, as have wealthy individuals under its jurisdiction. As Paddy Ashdown put it in 2015, David Cameron failed to put sufficient pressure on Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stop funding extremism, leading Ashdown to “worry about the closeness between the Conservative party and rich Arab Gulf individuals”. Consider Theresa May’s refusal to publish a report on foreign funding of extremism. Well, it would hardly go down well with the Gulf states, which are so deeply embedded in Tory milieus, would it?

What a farce. There was rolling coverage smearing Jeremy Corbyn as a traitor based on the testimonies of a single crank from the former Czechoslovakia. And yet the Tories are at the centre of a web spun by the Russian and Gulf regimes. Hundreds of people in Salisbury are now washing their belongings after traces of a nerve agent were found at the restaurant suspected to be the location where a Russian spy, and his daughter and a British policeman were poisoned.How is it morally acceptable for the Tories to take the Russian or Saudi shilling? What are the practical implications of this? And where is the never-ending media outrage over it? The answers to these three questions paint a damning picture indeed.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/12/tory-links-russia-saudi-links-corbyn-spy-extremism

“Tories quietly delay plan to force porn websites to check their users’ age”

Owl says: Can this government actually DO anything right!

“Plans to force porn websites to check their users are of legal age have been quietly delayed by the Tory government.

The announcement was sneaked out at the bottom of a 3,400-word press release about 5G on the Orkney Islands.

Porn sites were originally told to install age verification software before April this year in an effort to make the internet safer for children.

In July last year, Tory minister Matt Hancock – now Culture Secretary – told MPs the measures would be “fully in place” by “April 2018”.

But on Friday afternoon his department admitted it needs more “time to get the implementation of the policy right”.

The British Board of Film Classification was decided as the age verification regulator in February, the government said. …”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-quietly-delay-plan-force-12173694

Cranbrook will grow to 8,000 homes over 15 years

Owl says: and still it has no town centre and developers refuse to fund one!

“Feedback on how Devon’s newest town, Cranbrook, should grow and develop over the next 15 years, goes before councillors next week.

The Cranbrook Plan: Preferred Approach’ document sets out how the growth of the town up to around 8,000 households over the next 15 years will be achieved.

A community consultation ran for eight weeks from mid-November last year to early January and it gave residents of Cranbrook and its neighbouring communities the opportunity to comment on the proposals for the future of the town contained within the document ‘Cranbrook Plan: Preferred Approach’.

In addition to identifying land for new houses, the document also identified land for sport and community, economy and enterprise, schools, allotments and Gypsy and Travellers pitches. …

Outline planning permission for the first 2,900 homes at Cranbrook was issued in October 2010 followed shortly by the reserved matters for the first 1,100 homes in April 2011. Today there are approximately 1,700 households living at Cranbrook, equivalent to a population of around 4,000 people, but the Local Plan anticipates Cranbrook comprising approximately 7,850 new homes by 2031. This equates to a population of around 20,000 people meaning that Cranbrook will have quickly expanded to become the second largest town in the District.

The consultation revealed that there is a concern over relationship with properties at Broadclyst Station, who are keen to retain a separate identity, that the East Devon New Community partners say that the Treasbeare area could accommodate a minimum of 1,000 dwellings as opposed to the 800-950 stated in the masterplan, and that there should be a school in both of the Bluehayes and the Treasbeare area of Cranbrook..

On transport issues, the responses reveal that the delivery of a half-hourly rail service is a key ambition of the plan in order to encourage use of rail travel as an alternative to the car, but that despite the wishes of residents for the old A30, the B3174 London Road to remain as a bypass to developed, it is scheduled to be downgraded from its current status and to become an integral part of the town. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/council-discuss-how-devon-town-1328118

Better council scrutiny? Not on our watch says government!

“The Government has rejected calls from MPs for the extension of the requirement for a statutory scrutiny officer to all councils.

The proposal had been contained in a Communities and Local Government Select Committee report, Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees, published in December 2017.

MPs on the CLG committee had suggested that such a post-holder should have a seniority and profile of equivalence to the council’s corporate management team. Statutory scrutiny officers should also be required to make regular reports to full council on the state of scrutiny, explicitly identifying any areas of weakness and the work carried out to rectify them, they argued.

However, in its formal response the Government reiterated its view that decisions about the allocation of resources for the scrutiny function were best made at a local level. “Each council is best-placed to know which arrangements will suit its own individual circumstances. It is not a case of one size fits all.” …”

In other words, if a council has something to hide – it can hide it.

EDDC “Council decision to sell HQ for £7.5M is worst deal ever, activists”

“Activists have branded a council decision to sell its HQ “the worst deal ever” for taxpayers.

East Devon District Council is selling its offices at Knowle in Sidmouth to Pegasus Life Ltd, one of Britain’s largest retirement housing developers, for £7.5 million.

The developable value of the site – divulged in a response to a Freedom of Information request in January-has been set at £50 million, with Pegasus Life Ltd set to make a £10 million profit.

Pegasus is owned by an American firm listed in the so-called Paradise Papers, 13.4 million confidential electronic documents relating to offshore investments that were leaked to German reporters last year. Offshore investments enable companies and individuals to shelter their wealth and avoid tax. They are legal.

Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance campaign group, said: “Why were councillors never told that our last great piece of family silver the Knowle – would be worth a massive £50 million after development?

“If any individual person in East Devon was told their prime location property could be developed and sold on for £50 million they’d never accept £7 million.”

In December 2016, the council’s planning committee rejected Pegasus Life’s planning application for 113 extra care units, but following a four-day inquiry into the developer’s appeal in November, a planning inspector gave the firm approval for the scheme which includes a café and swimming pool. Sidmouth has been allocated only 50 extra care homes in the council’s Local Plan.

The Alliance said it was an “exceptionally bad” deal, because, in accordance with the old land buyer’s rule of thumb, the landowner of a site should expect around a third of its developable value – in this case £16.5 million.
A council spokesperson said the deal was based on the site’s land value – in its current state. The site includes the buildings, terraces and top car parks.

Moving council operations to Honiton, with a satellite office at Exmouth Town Hall, has a budget of £10 million and is being funded out of the council’s coffers and a Public Works Loan Board loan.

The council spokesperson said that “from day one”, council running costs would reduce significantly when it leaves the Knowle and during its first full year of operations at Honiton it will save £135,000, with savings increasing year-on-year.

The Alliance pointed out that because the proposed complex is considered to be a residential/care home development, as opposed to a general residential development, the developer is not required to pay Section 106 money towards providing community services. The developer is only contributing £12,000 to improve access/footpaths to the site from adjacent parkland.

However, the developer could have to comply with what is known as an overage clause: If more than a 20% profit is made from the development, the council will be entitled to 50% of any profit made over and above the 20%, to a maximum of £3.5 million.

A council spokesperson, said: “We have carried out due diligence on Pegasus Life Ltd and are satisfied that they are an established and successful company suitably financed, capable of delivering the promised development and able satisfy their contract with the council.

“Selling the Knowle and moving offices is key to continuing to serve our communities. Services to our communities are what matter, not the vanity of paying to stay in an outdated and expensive building.

Pegasus Life Ltd bosses did not comment when asked whether any of the profit of its Sidmouth development could end up in tax havens. However, Howard Phillips, its chief executive, said: “We pride ourselves on the quality of our developments and the sensitivity of our designs to ensure they fit in with the area’s achitectural vernacular.

“The UK is in the middle of housing crisis and local authorities need to make cohesive eve plans that meet the needs their local towns. This includes provision for people over 60.”

Source: Western Morning Newz

Another developer scandal – with George Osborne needing to explain himself

“More than a dozen property schemes in the north of England that were promoted to investors in Asia – in one case by former chancellor George Osborne – have either stalled indefinitely or collapsed outright, a Guardian Cities investigation has found.

Hundreds of investors claim to have lost money to an increasingly popular property model known as “buyer-funded development”. In these schemes, rather than go to banks, developers finance projects using multiple small investors’ deposits – which can be up to 80% of the value of the unit.

But, according to some investors, money has been taken without the units being delivered. Some describe losing their life savings and say they have approached police for help recovering their funds.

Others say they believed the developments were somehow state-guaranteed because they were promoted as investment opportunities by officials from local or national government.

The development was one of several projects in the north of England promoted to overseas investors by Osborne during a 2015 “trade mission” to China. Osborne told the Liverpool Echo that he was working as a “tag team” with the city’s mayor, Joe Anderson, to persuade individuals to invest in the scheme.

However, the development has since been mired in problems, with little sign of progress at the construction site. Amid increasingly serious complaints by investors and several missed deadlines, Liverpool city council commenced legal action against the developer last year and said it had referred the scheme to the National Crime Agency.

Last July North Point Global announced it would seek to offload all of its property developments because its brand was “tainted and damaged beyond salvage” as a result of criticism by the council and reporting by the Liverpool Echo, which has covered its developments extensively. …”

[The article continues with many other examples of promised deals gone bad]

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/11/collapsed-uk-property-schemes-foreign-investors-george-osborne

“Litvinenko widow warns Tories over Russian donations”

Why should ANY UK Party be allowed to take donations from non-UK companies or nationals?

The Conservative Party has also blocked us knowing who funded the DUP anti-Brexit campaign that paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for anti-Brexit newspapers not available in Ireland.

“The Conservative party is facing pressure to return Russian donations after the attempted murder of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil.

Marina Litvinenko, the widow of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, whose murder is believed to have been carried out under the direction of Russia’s FSB spy agency, said the Tories risked tainting their reputation if they held on to the cash.

“You need to be very accurate where this money came from before you accept this money,” she told Sky News. “If you identify it’s dirty money [you’re] just not allowed to accept it because I think reputation is very important. [The] reputation of the Conservative party in the UK and all around the world needs to be clear.”

The Sunday Times reported that Russian oligarchs and their associates had registered donations of £826,100 to the Tories since Theresa May entered No 10.

A spokesman said: “All donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them and comply fully with the law.”

Litvinenko accused May of failing to act to prevent a reoccurrence of the type of attack to which her husband fell victim. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/11/litvinenko-widow-warns-tories-over-russian-donations

Vile? Moi? Never!

Hugo Swire has called this blog “vile”. He’s entitled to his opinion (as is Owl).

However, the blog does have the odd rule (though very few, and very odd) and one is that it reserves the right to edit the many variations on Mr Swire’s name from its commentators – some of which are a rather clever but demeaning play on words.

He will always be the polite “Hugo Swire” to this blog – though NEVER the fawning “Sir Hugo Swire” for a knighthood handed down by his pal Dave just before he (said Dave)jumped off the Tory luxury cruise ship and landed on a bed of goose down feathers sprinkled with unicorn dust.

Privatisation: consultants hire more consultants to bail them out (maybe)

(The final paragraph gives some perspective to the Capita boss’s upbeat message!)

“The embattled outsourcing giant Capita is plotting a £700m fire sale of assets alongside a heavily discounted rights issue intended to raise a similar sum.

The new chief executive of the former FTSE 100 favourite is understood to be working on a more aggressive than expected review that could lead to the sale of six or seven businesses.

Jonathan Lewis, who overhauled the oil services company Amec Foster Wheeler, admitted in January that Capita needed a rescue cash call.

Delivering a profit warning that almost halved the market value to £1.1bn, Lewis said Capita had underinvested and relied on acquisitions to fuel growth.

The company has contracts ranging from army recruitment to customer services for Tesco Mobile [and BIG contracts with local authorities such as Barnet where they run just about everything]. It is wrestling with a debt pile that totalled £1.2bn at the end of last year and a reported £381m pension deficit.

Capita has hired the consultancy McKinsey & Co to work on its strategy and Bain & Co to help scythe through costs.

Lewis said in January that two businesses would be sold — Constructionline and ParkingEye — as part of non-core disposals. It is understood Capita has now identified six or seven businesses, worth up to £700m, that could be sold in stages. With the rights issue, this would allow Capita to raise up to £1.4bn of fresh capital. The company has had more than 120 approaches from potential bidders interested in its offshoots.

Capita has delayed publishing its 2017 results until it finalises the rights issue, which could be launched within weeks. Lewis is expected to reveal a cost-cutting plan that will strip hundreds of millions of pounds from its overheads.

The turnaround drive comes amid a toxic climate for outsourcing companies, illustrated by the collapse of Carillion in January.

Interserve is trying to refinance its £513m debt. The share price leapt last week on hopes that a deal with lenders may be agreed within days.

Lewis has insisted Capita is not in the same position as Carillion, pointing out it has £1bn of cash and bank facilities. Its shares closed last week at 168p. A year ago they were trading at 518.6p.

● Advisers to Carillion were handed £6.4m just before its collapse. Law firms including Clifford Chance and Slaughter and May and the investment bank Lazard were among the firms that were paid fees on January 12, an inquiry by MPs has found. Carillion went into liquidation 72 hours later.”

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (East Devon Alliance) updates on NHS changes

This is a long article but if you want to know where we are with NHS changes in Devon this gives you all the information.

Our pressure has led to Devon NHS joining a national retreat from privatising Accountable Care Organisations. However the Devon Integrated Care System will still cap care, with weak democratic control – we need time to rethink

We must thank ALL our Independent Councillors – particularly DCC Independent Councillor Claire Wright, DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (East Devon Alliance) and EDDC Councillor Cathy Gardner (East Devon Alliance) for the tremendous work they have done (and continue to do) in the face of the intransigence (and frankly, unintelligence) of sheep-like Tory councillors.

At EDDC Tory Councillors told their Leader to back retaining community hospitals, so he went to DCC and voted to close them (receiving no censure for this when Independents called for a vote of no confidence).

At the DCC, Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee Tory members were 10-line whipped by its Chair Sarah Randall-Johnson to refuse a debate on important changes and to vote for accelerated privatisation with no checks or balances.

At DCC full council – well Tory back-benchers might just as well send in one councillor to vote since they all seem to be programmed by the same robotics company!

“Tories oversee 272% rise in removing essential home care funding for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s sufferers”

“An investigation has revealed that thousands of chronically ill and disabled people are having NHS funding for their care removed, leaving their families to pick up enormous bills. And proposed ‘efficiency savings’ are likely to make the situation much worse.

The problem is with people who have been granted NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC) funding, which pays for care outside hospital for people who are found to have a ‘primary health need’. If their need is considered ‘social’ rather than medical, they get no help with paying for care costs or nursing home fees – a criteria which is seemingly becoming harder and harder to meet, even for people with the most serious conditions. With nursing home fees averaging over £40,000 a year, whether or not someone is deemed eligible for the payment is obviously a crucial issue.

The investigation for This is Money found that between 2013 and 2016, the number of people having their CHC payment removed rose by a staggering 272%, from 593 to 2,211 people. These include people with long-term, deteriorating conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, who have suddenly been told they are no longer eligible despite their condition being unchanged or worsening.

And whilst these numbers may sound relatively small, NHS England is demanding ‘efficiency’ savings from CHC of £855m by 2020/21, leading to concerns that many more people are going to have their funding cut off.

Making decisions about who is eligible for CHC is the responsibility of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), defined as ‘clinically-led statutory NHS bodies responsible for the planning and commissioning of health care services for their local area’. The vast number of CCGs – 207 in England – and their differing interpretations of CHC criteria mean that whether you are granted funding may depend as much on where you live, as what your health needs are.

A January 2018 report for the Public Accounts Committee noted that there is a huge variation in the numbers of people granted CHC funding across CCGs, ranging from 28 up to 356 people per 50,000 population.

The stakeholders representing patients raised concerns that CCGs are increasingly placing arbitrary financial caps on the cost of care packages and may be forcing people to accept lower cost packages that do not meet their care needs.

But speaking to the Public Accounts Committee, Simon Stevens, Chief Executive of NHS England, was adamant that people granted the payment would not see their care affected by the cuts. MP Nigel Mills asked him:

So there is absolutely no pressure on CCGs from you or the Department to find ways of rationing this care or reducing its quality? We want people to get the right care for their needs in the right setting; is that what we are aiming for?
To which Simon Stevens replied: “We are aiming for that.”

But there’s already evidence of rationing. One of the witnesses at the PAC hearing was Brian O’Shea, the Continuing Healthcare Adviser at the Spinal Injuries Association. He talked about a 53 year old man with a spinal injury, with four young children, who has been in hospital for six months. He has been told that he’ll have to go into a nursing home, as the care costs of supporting him in his family home are too great. O’Shea said:

What they are doing is using it [CHC] as a tool to blackmail people into accepting unsafe levels of care and of funding to live in their own home or their preferred setting of care and relying on informal support to pick up the rest of the care.

So despite what Simon Stevens says, it’s hard to see how £855m in ‘efficiency savings’ can be made without refusing the payment to many people who should be eligible, or reducing the package of care people are granted.

It’s clear the problem is already there, and these cuts can only make it worse. As ever with the Tories’ entirely discredited regime of systematic cuts to vital public services, it’s the most vulnerable who will suffer.”

https://evolvepolitics.com/tories-oversee-272-rise-in-removing-essential-home-care-funding-for-parkinsons-and-alzheimers-sufferers/

That “6.5% payrise” for NHS workers deconstructed – it’s a pay cut!

“The good news: the eight year cap on NHS staff pay may finally be removed! The bad news? What’s being offered by way of “pay rise” is anything but.

Following months of negotiations between Ministers and Union officials, 1 million NHS staff are set to be offered what the Government is calling a 6.5% pay rise according to a leaked report today.

However, in practice, what that looks like is as follows: a 3% increase in salary from 2018-2019, which is simply the rate of inflation, and then a rise of 1-2% in the following two years.

The pay rise, which simply lines pay with inflation, is not a pay rise in any meaningful sense. Considering the fact that such an inadequate, paltry measure comes after eight years of pay that hasn’t even nearly matched the rate of inflation, the insult is stark.

NHS Nurse and ardent pro-NHS activist Jac Berry explained exactly why the Tories’ latest offer is so demeaning in a Facebook post, saying:

“Somebody (probably in a suit) has leaked what the government plans to offer us NHS staff over the next three years.

The chat is we will be offered a 6.5% increase which sounds good BUT ACTUALLY there are problems with what’s allegedly on the table.

1) The “award” is spread out over three years. If the rumours are true, this year we’ll be offered 3%, followed by 1-2% for the 2019-2021. The cost of living is going up faster than that, so this is in effect a pay cut.

2)In return, we must give up a day of our hard won Annual Leave. Personally I believe we need that annual leave to get rest and recuperation from doing incredibly undervalued work in increasingly challenging circumstances.

Sacrificing a day of that doesn’t just effect our pockets, it also affects our general well-being.

I do not view this as a acceptable offer so unless the 14 Health union leaders in direct negotiations can push the government back, I think we have no choice but to reject it.

On the question of strike action. No worker, let alone those of us caring for the sick and the vulnerable, withdraws their labour lightly. However, if the above is the best that (c)an be achieved through negotiations then I can’t think of any other option.”

To add more insult to the insult, in return for the paltry Government offering – some Twistian helping served up and slopped into the bowls of Britain’s most cherished workers – it is also a condition of the Tories’ offer that NHS staff sacrifice a day’s holiday. Indeed, the condition is a so-called red line.

Such a red line constitutes, in reality, a 0.4% pay cut. All this comes after a 14% real terms pay cut following years of austerity.

With an NHS suffering a massive dearth in staff: underfunded and under-appreciated, the Government’s response highlights exactly how little they truly care, and how little they appreciate the scale of the issue.

It’s symptomatic of a Government that thinks it can continue to strangulate the air out of the lungs of the institutions that make this country great and still expect it to sing in perfect falsetto.

Our NHS staff already work untold hours of unpaid overtime, already they sacrifice for strangers, and now in order to be graced with the honour of a meagre pay rise, they are expected to give up their only time to rest, to recuperate, to recover and rejuvenate so that they can continue to provide the service that they do.

After May patronised the profession by lying to them that a “magic money tree” doesn’t exist before jimmying up wads of cash for the DUP, and after she proselytised that there are myriad reasons why nurses might use food banks, this supposed ‘offer’ from the Government is truly outrageous.

It is arrogant, condescending, brutish and destructive, and NHS Staff should reject it.”

The Tories’ NHS “Pay Rise” is a CON – it’s a PAY CUT – and they plan to steal paid holiday from NHS staff for the privilege

MPs profess shock at £817 million housing underspend

Owl says: Let’s say each affordable home cost a very generous £200,000 – that’s just over 4,000 affordable homes! If we went down the prefabricated route and homes were £100,000 that’s just over 8,000. Cranbrook currently has about 3,500 homes. Scandalous.

“MPs are demanding an urgent explanation from ministers after being told that £817m allocated for desperately needed affordable housing and other projects in cash-strapped local authorities has been returned to the Treasury unspent.

The surrender of the unused cash has astonished members of the cross-party housing, communities and local government select committee at a time when Theresa May has insisted housebuilding is a top priority and when many local authorities are becoming mired in ever deeper financial crises.

On Monday the committee, which discovered the underspend for 2017-18, will interrogate housing minister Dominic Raab and homelessness minister Heather Wheeler on the issue, before Tuesday’s spring statement by the chancellor, Philip Hammond. He is under heavy pressure from MPs, and the Tory-controlled Local Government Association, to signal extra help for the local authority sector, which has seen budget cuts of around 50% since 2010.

The acting chair of the committee, the Tory MP Bob Blackman, said: “We will be wanting to know why this very large sum has not been spent at a time of great strain on local authority budgets, and why it was not channelled to other spending projects. It does not help those of us who argue that more should be given to local authorities if the chancellor knows money he gave last time has not even been spent.” MPs believe they can argue for more for local authorities because Hammond will announce that unexpectedly high tax receipts have left the Treasury with a windfall of between £7bn and £10bn.

Speaking on Saturday night, the chancellor said the government had gone a long way to put the public finances back in order and was now able to pump more into services, including housing: “We’re making good progress on building the homes this country needs with, last year, a 20-year record high for housebuilding. This is how we build an economy that works for everyone.”

But Helen Hayes MP, a Labour member of the select committee, said it was “astonishing” that money was lying unspent when the number of social homes built by local authorities from government grants had dropped dramatically since 2010. “This is the biggest issue for families up and down the country, including in my Dulwich and West Norwood constituency,” she said. “It is simply astonishing and unacceptable that there is so little urgency being shown.”

For the last 30 years, councils have cut back council housebuilding in the face of severe budget cuts. Local authorities have also been discouraged from building by the government’s “right to buy” scheme, which allows tenants to buy council properties at a 40% discount.

Hundreds of councils have set up their own property development companies to build homes and get around the rules. But progress has been slow, in part because of the threat from ministers that they might extend the right to buy to the new council-owned companies.

Shadow housing minister John Healey said housing and local government secretary Sajid Javid’s department had also failed to spend £220m of funding allocated to affordable housing last year. “Sajid Javid needs to explain why he is selling families short by surrendering much-needed cash for new homes,” he said.“If the secretary of state can’t defend his department’s budget from the Treasury he should give the job to someone who can.”

A housing ministry spokesman said: “We are investing £9bn in affordable homes, including £2bn to help councils and housing associations build social rent homes where they are most needed.

“All of the affordable housing underspend from 2016-17, including £65m returned by the Greater London Authority, has been made available to spend on similar schemes.”

Last week, the National Audit Office estimated that 10% of unitary authorities and county councils have less than three years’ reserves left if they continue to deploy them at current rates, leaving them vulnerable to potential insolvency.

The Tory chair of the health and social care select committee, Sarah Wollaston, said action was needed urgently: “NHS public health and social care need a boost now, but also a long-term plan to provide the funding they need and a clear plan to set out how the money will be raised.”

Labour will counter Hammond’s claim that the public finances are on the mend by calling for an emergency budget to address the funding crisis hitting Tory- as well as Labour- and Lib Dem-run councils.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/10/housing-budget-817-million-unspent-astonished-mps

Jeremy Hunt personally intervened to ensure Virgin hospital contract in his constituency

“Jeremy Hunt, the new health secretary, personally intervened to encourage the controversial takeover of NHS hospitals in his constituency by a private company, Virgin Care, raising fresh concerns last night over his appointment.

Hunt, who replaced Andrew Lansley in last week’s cabinet reshuffle, was so concerned by a delay to the £650m deal earlier this year that he asked for assurances from NHS Surrey officials that it would be swiftly signed.

Virgin Care, which is part-owned by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, subsequently agreed on a five-year contract in March to run seven hospitals along with dentistry services, sexual health clinics, breast cancer screening and other community services. The takeover took place despite concerns being raised in the local NHS risk register about the impact on patient care following the transfer of management from the NHS to one of the country’s largest private healthcare firms, until recently known as Assura Medical.

The director of nursing highlighted the danger of “significant issues” emerging during the first year of Virgin Care control, which NHS Surrey has tried to ameliorate through contractual controls. There was also prolonged wrangling between NHS Surrey and Virgin Care over the terms of the deal, including staff’s terms of employment. However, during the lengthy delay before the deal was agreed, Hunt intervened to ask for assurances from the head of the primary care trust “that the delay is to ensure the best possible outcome for patients and staff”. Writing on his website about the issue, he added: “I hope that Assura and NHS Surrey are able to complete the transfer of services soon, but I am glad they are crossing every T and dotting every I.”

The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, said last night that the revelation would add to concerns about Hunt’s appointment and his affinity to big business so soon after the furore over the minister’s relationship with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp while he was culture secretary during the attempted takeover of BSkyB. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/09/jeremy-hunt-virgin-hospital-deal