“Official figures mask A&E waiting times”

“Tens of thousands more patients spent more than 12 hours in A&E waiting for a bed last year than official figures suggest. Doctors and MPs called for a change to how “trolley waits” were reported in England after an investigation by The Times.

Official numbers show that 2,770 A&E patients had to wait more than 12 hours for a bed last year. These NHS statistics only capture the time between a doctor deciding a patient needs to be admitted and then being found a place on a ward. If the time is recorded between arriving at A&E and being found a bed, the number of patients who had to wait in emergency departments for more than 12 hours leaps to at least 67,406 patients, 24 times higher, according to data obtained under freedom of information laws.

The true figure is likely to be even higher, as only 73 hospitals out of 137 replied to the requests. The Times also asked hospitals for details of the longest wait they had recorded each week. Those revealed about 200 patients waiting more than a day for a bed last year. In December a 103-year-old woman spent 29 hours in A&E before she was admitted to the Great Western Hospital in Swindon, Wiltshire. The trust said that it had been one of the busiest months on record. The longest wait reported to The Times, of almost four days, was a 16-year-old boy at Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust.

Sarah Wollaston, Conservative chairwoman of the health select committee, said that long waits in A&E raised patient safety concerns. “When departments are already at full stretch, having to care for individuals who may be very unwell and waiting for transfer to a more appropriate clinical setting reduces the time clinicians are free to assess and care for new arrivals and this can rapidly lead to spiralling delays,” Dr Wollaston said. “The total length of time that people are spending in emergency departments should be recorded alongside the current figures.”

Paul Williams, a Labour member of the committee, said: “If the clock doesn’t start ticking on ‘trolley waits’ until this decision has been made, then hospitals can legitimately have someone waiting for more than three hours to be seen and assessed, and then another 11 hours on a trolley without this leading to a breach of targets.” In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, 12-hour waits are recorded from when a patient arrives in the department.

Rachel Power, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “It’s clear from this data that many patients are enduring even longer waits with their safety, privacy and dignity compromised than the official statistics show.”

Taj Hassan, president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, said: “I think all independent observers would agree that, at the moment, the way we are describing our 12-hour trolley waits is not accurately describing the numbers.”

An NHS England spokesman said: “In the last 12 months to February 2018 the number of 12-hour trolley waits has dropped by more than 20 per cent on the previous year, and this has been achieved while hospitals also successfully looked after 160,000 more A&E patients within the four-hour target this winter compared to last winter.” NHS Digital is set to publish separate monthly statistics on the total number of patients spending more than 12 hours in A&E, whether or not they eventually needed admission. They said there were more than 260,000 during the financial year 2016-17.

Behind the story

Hospitals are expected to treat, admit or discharge 95 per cent of patients within four hours of their arrival at A&E (Kat Lay writes).

However, they have not met that target since July 2015. In January, only 77.1 per cent of people going to larger A&Es were dealt with within four hours.

For patients who require admission — “the sickest group” attending A&E, says the Royal College of Emergency Medicine — it appears to be worse.

At hospitals that provided figures to The Times, on average only 53 per cent of patients requiring admission were found a bed within four hours in January this year.

A lack of social care means that many of the beds that such patients need to be moved on to are taken up by people who do not need to be in hospital any longer, doctors complain.

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Our NHS: Demo at DCC HQ Thursday 22 March from mid-day

Join SOHS demo from midday – County Hall, Exeter – This Thursday 22nd March.

Save Our Hospital Services (SOHS) Devon are lobbying against plans to introduce structural changes in NHS delivery of services from April 1st with the introduction of an Integrated Care System (formerly known as ‘Accountable Care System’). This is yet another reorganisation of Health & Social Care services, which hasn’t been consulted on and is part of the ‘Sustainability & Transformation Plan’ imposed by the government to cut another £550 million off Devon’s Health care and introduce more privatisation…

IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE NHS COME AND JOIN US

We will also address the DCC Health & Adult Care Scrutiny Committee at 2.00pm on Thursday with 12 key questions about Integrated Care Systems (ICS)
planned for introduction by NHS England from April 1st without consultation. SOHS have sent these 12 questions to Dr Tim Burke, Chair of the NEW CCG
which meet also at 1.00pm on Thursday at County Hall.

LEPs – not fit for purpose

Owl says: No accountability, no transparency and yet they are taking over more and more money that used to be supervised by district and county councils. Why and who benefits? Certainly not us.

A group of MPs has told the government to “get its act together” regarding the governance of public-private partnerships set up to boost local economies.

A Public Accounts Committee report on the Greater Cambridgeshire Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership, released on Friday, found that the LEP had failed to meet standards of accountability and transparency.

In particular, the report found that the GCGP LEP failed to publish board papers and reproduce minutes in a timely or accessible manner.

The PAC also found the former chair of the GCGP LEP- Mark Reeve- did not take responsibility for the LEPs failings and did not appreciate the importance of good governance of LEPs.

Consequently, the PAC suggested that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, should implement the recommendations of the Mary Ney review, which sets out guidelines to improve governance and transparency of partnerships, for all LEPs.

It also called for all LEP board members to be familiar with the Nolan Principles, which were published by the government in 1995 and set out the basis of ethical standards expected of public office holders.

PAC chair, Meg Hillier said: “Local enterprise partnerships are not an abstract concept on a Whitehall flipchart.

“They are making real decisions about real money that affect real people.

“This troubling case only serves to underline our persistent concerns about the governance of LEPs, their transparency and their accountability to the taxpayer.”

The report also revealed that the MHCLG’s oversight system failed to indentify GCGP LEP as one which should have raised concerns, after Cambridgeshire County Council’s section 151 officer signed off on GCGP LEP’s assurance framework without checking all of its supporting documentation.

As such, the PAC has asked the MHCLG to write to them setting out the results of its compliance checks and annual conversations and for them to publish these results.

Hillier added: “Taxpayers need to be assured their money is being spent wisely and with adequate protections in place to prevent its misuse.

“Central government must move swiftly to ensure the recommendations of the Ney review are fully implemented and we expect to see evidence that this has happened.”

The MHCLG has been approached for comment.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/03/government-told-get-its-act-together-over-leps

Control of community care in Nottinghamshire falls to controversial US company

“NHS Protectors’ worst fears are being realised as USA’s Centene is likely to control Greater Nottingham Accountable Care System, by taking over the NHS Commissioner’s role in a £206m community services contract.

At the very time that its discredited subsidiary Ribera Salud – which is being kicked out of Spain by the Valencia Green/Podemos/Socialist government – has appointed former New Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn as a Director and has sent lots of executives to UK to help Centene UK with its plan of buying primary care and mental health companies.

The UK subsidiary of Centene – a US sub-prime health insurance profiteer that has got rich off managing Obamacare’s publicly-funded Medicaid programmes which provide health insurance for people on a low income – is likely to take over the NHS commissioner’s role in the £206m, 7 year contract for out-of-hospital community services, that Nottingham City Clinical Commissioning Group recently awarded to Nottingham City Partnership Community Interest Company. …”

This seems to bear out NHS protectors’ worst fears that Accountable Care Systems or Organisations are Trojan horses designed to import US companies into key controlling positions in these new types of local NHS and social care services.

Centene UK, assisted by executives from its discredited Spanish subsidiary Ribera Salud, is also studying the acquisition of primary care and mental health companies in the United Kingdom, according to recent reports from Valencia Plaza.

Ribera Salud recently appointed the former New Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn to its Board of Directors, to help it “continue with its expansion plans.” In addition, during the recent visit to Valencia of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to Spain, Simon Manley, a British manager of Ribera Salud contacted him to explain the company’s plans. …

Nottingham City Clinical Commissioning Group will become part of the Nottinghamshire/Greater Nottingham Accountable Care System. This will be:

“a single risk bearing entity to managing [sic] the entire care continuum. The successful provider must form part of the ACS and…will be expected to help shape and deliver its part of the single risk bearing entity.”

This sounds like the Accountable Care Organisation contract – which NHS England is not approving now and which is the subject of two Judicial Reviews in the Spring and a public consultation at some unspecified point in time.

The contract notification says that when the Accountable Care System is implemented, this will require a contract variation which:

“will require the successful provider to provide its consent to the potential future transfer of the CCG’s role under the contract.”

This contract variation will mean transferring the contract from Nottingham Clinical Commissioning Group to another provider, or the Care Integrator (Centene UK).

It seems that Nottingham City Clinical Commissioning Group has taken a gamble on the likelihood that NHS England will be approving the Accountable Care Organisation contract by the time the Sustainability and Transformation Partnership has figured out its business case to consider the options for partner organisations in managing the Accountable Care System components and has secured legal and procurement support to advise on this.”

https://calderdaleandkirklees999callforthenhs.wordpress.com/2018/03/19/usas-centene-to-take-over-nhs-commissioners-function-in-206m-community-services-contract-as-accountable-care-system-sets-up/

“LIST OF SHAME: THE 312 MPS WHO VOTED TO TAKE FREE SCHOOL MEALS FROM 1M POOR CHILDREN”

Of course, it includes Swire and Parish

“In the House of Commons on Tuesday, MPs defeated a Labour motion, moved by Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner, to block a planned government move that will take a free, hot school meal from the mouths of around one million children from low-income families.

Tory MPs have attempted to deflect blame for their callousness by selectively quoting a Channel 4 Fact Check article – which said it could not fault the Labour Party’s calculations – in order to claim they are actually giving free meals to an additional 50,000 children and not taking it away from the million.

But that pathetic deflection was laid to rest in the very first exchange of the debate around Labour’s motion:

Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)

Does the hon. Lady agree with Channel 4’s FactCheck, which says:

“This is not a case of the government taking free school meals from a million children”.

These are children who are not currently receiving free school meals, and in fact the Government’s proposals ​would see 50,000 extra children receive free school meals. Perhaps the hon. Lady could stop giving inaccurate information to the House.

Angela Rayner

The hon. Gentleman should know that his Government have introduced transitional arrangements, and we are clear that under the transitional arrangements, those 1 million children would be entitled to free school meals. With the regulations, the Government are pulling the rug from under those hard-working families.

In my own boroughs of Oldham and Tameside, a total of 8,700 children growing up in poverty are set to miss out. In the Secretary of State’s own area, the total is 6,500. So much for the light at the end of the tunnel that the Chancellor mentioned over the weekend on “The Andrew Marr Show”!

The UK has one of the worst rates of child malnutrition and ‘food insecurity’ among rich nations – with one in five UK children suffering food insecurity.

In spite of this – and the callousness of depriving hungry schoolchildren of food, with the consequent impact on their health and education – the government defeated the motion.

Not a single Tory MP rebelled – and of the ten DUP MPs, ‘incentivised‘ by a Theresa May pledge to maintain the free school meals for Northern Irish children – only one declined to vote away the provision for children in Britain.

The full roll-call of shame of MPs who voted down Labour’s attempt to protect poor children from hunger is below [includes Swire and Parish]”

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/03/14/list-of-shame-the-315-mps-who-voted-to-take-free-school-meals-from-1m-poor-children/

“Boris Johnson defends playing tennis match with wife of former Putin minister in exchange for £160,000 Tory donation”

… “Mr Johnson insisted not all Russians should be tarred with the same brush – and there was nothing wrong with accepting Russian cash if donors were not guilty of “gross corruption”. …”

Good use of the word “gross” there – minor or moderate us absolutely fine then?

He goes on:

“If there is evidence of gross corruption in the way that gentleman you mentioned obtained his wealth, then it is possible for our law enforcement agencies to deprive him of his wealth.

“That is a matter for the authorities, it is not a matter for me. …”

Again that clever and calculated use of the adjective!

“Mr Johnson admitted for the first time today that the tennis match happened.

Since then Ms Chernukhin’s total of cash donations to the Tories since 2012 has climbed to almost £500,000.”

Last month she bid £30,000 for a meal and private tour of Churchill’s War Rooms with Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson at the Tories’ lavish Black and White Ball fundraiser. … “

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-defends-playing-tennis-12209056

“100,000 low-cost homes have had rents hiked since 2012”

“Labour has unveiled plans to stem the loss of low-cost homes as new analysis reveals more than 100,000 social homes have been converted into a more expensive type of property in the last six years alone.

The party said it would scrap a policy introduced by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government in 2012 that forces housing associations and local councils to raise rents by an average of 40 per cent by converting social homes into “affordable homes”.

The announcement is the second to come out of Labour’s review into the future of social housing, which is likely to report in the coming weeks.

It comes as analysis seen by The Independent revealed the huge loss of social homes largely as a result of a change made by the coalition. …

While social rents are generally around 40 per cent of market value, affordable homes can cost up to 80 per cent of market rents, prompting criticism that in many parts of country they are out of the reach of people on ordinary incomes. …

The coalition made the conversion of low-cost social homes into affordable homes a key plank of its housing policy.

An official document from 2011 explaining the Government’s approach said: “The conversion of existing stock to affordable rent is a crucial element in generating additional financial capacity and it is anticipated that it will be integral to the offer that providers bring forward as part of their proposals for funding new supply.”

The change was made despite the Government’s own impact assessment making it clear that forcing the conversion of social housing into affordable housing would result in “greater costs to Government through increases in housing benefit”, although this was forecast to be offset by cuts to housing spending. …

At the same time as the change was made, Government funding for new social housing was ended entirely and instead diverted to fund “affordable” homes.

As a result, the number of new, Government-funded social homes has plummeted by 97 per year since 2010, with just 1,102 new homes completed last year – funded via existing programmes set up before 2010. …

About 102,000 homes have been converted since 2012, while around 60,000 have been sold to tenants under Right to Buy.

Only around 50,000 new social homes have been built in that time – the vast majority funded by housing associations. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-social-housing-policy-affordable-homes-100000-converted-coalition-government-a8256776.html

Seaton and Area Health Matters meeting, Friday 23 March 9 am1 pm – registration required

From the blog of DCC East Devon Alliance councillor Martin Shaw:

“A reminder to all involved in local community groups, especially those with an interest in health and wellbeing in the broadest senses, that Seaton and Area Health Matters will convene in the Town Hall on Friday 23rd March, 9 for 9.30 until 1 pm. There is still time to register!

Book here:

https://goo.gl/forms/7laMUjhByt8F0w053

You are invited to participate in this community led event with key stakeholders around the future health and wellbeing of all the people in our communities, in response to the new landscape affecting Seaton and surrounding area as a result of NHS and Government policies advocating Place-Based Care in health provision and cross-sector collaborative working with community groups

The aim: To discuss what we know, where there are gaps/challenges and how, as a community we will address these to ensure collaborative approaches to co-design and co-produce local health services/activities that meet the needs of all the people in our communities.

Invitees: Management and senior level employees and volunteers / trustees from community, voluntary and social enterprise sector as well as public and private organisations.

Area to include: Seaton, Colyford & Colyton, Beer, Axmouth, Branscombe

PROGRAMME:

Welcome: Mayor of Seaton – Cllr Jack Rowland

Community Context:
• Dr Mark Welland – Chairman of Seaton & District Hospital League of Friends
• Roger Trapani – Community Representative, Devon Health and Care Forum
• Charlotte Hanson – Chief Officer, Action East Devon

Strategic and Services Overview – Place Based Care:
• Em Wilkinson-Bryce – Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
• Chris Entwistle – Health and Social Care Community Services
• Dr Jennie Button – Social Prescribing Lead – Ways 2 Wellbeing project in Seaton

Workshop, Networking and Discussion will form the main part of this event:
• Workshop 1 – What is working well and what are the challenges for Seaton and surrounding area?
• Workshop 2 – Working together to improve health and wellbeing outcomes? What support do we need?”

Reminder – Seaton and Area Health Matters meeting in Seaton Town Hall on Friday 23rd from 9.

“Councils STILL unable to access billions of pounds for new houses”

“A £2bn fund to build a new generation of council homes is yet to be released despite the UK’s shortage of social housing.

Theresa May promised five months ago that the state would address the crisis.

But Paul Dennett, elected Labour mayor of Salford, said councils still cannot apply for the money.

In a letter to Sajid Javid, secretary of state for housing, he wrote: “We are concerned and frustrated that… 

“We are still being advised by Homes England and partner registered providers [housing associations] that the guidelines for the allocation of grants to build homes for social rent have not been published, and that no date has been set for when this funding will be made available.” …

Councils are currently prevented from using the proceeds of social housing sales to build replacement homes.

Instead regulations have required private developers to build or fund so-called affordable housing with rents at 20 per cent below the market average. …

Mr Javid has yet to reply to Mr Dennett’s letter asking for details about the £2bn fund.

The Ministry of Housing said: “We are delivering the homes our country needs and since 2010 we have built over 357,000 new affordable properties.

“But we are determined to do more and we are investing a further £9bn, including £2bn to help councils and housing associations build homes for social rent.” …

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/932820/Councils-cannot-access-billions-pounds-funding-new-homes-property-development-Sajid-Javid

“Eight out of 10 academies in deficit, say accountants”

Academy budgets are in an even worse state than those of council-run schools with eight out of 10 in deficit, suggest figures from their accountants.

Two more years like this and the entire sector could face insolvency, says a report from the Kreston UK accountancy network which looked at 450 schools.
It follows data published on Friday which showed over a quarter of council-run secondary schools were in deficit.

The government disputes the findings of both reports.

The 450 schools analysed in the Kreston UK report are all audited by accountancy firms in the network and are a representative sample of academies in England, say the authors.

The figures, for the year ending 31 August 2017, show that of these academies:

55% were in deficit before the effect of depreciation of assets like buildings, equipment and furniture was taken into account

this rose to 80% when the accounts were adjusted to include depreciation.
The report, co-authored by accountants Duncan & Toplis, calls for more money to be put into schools to avoid staff cuts.

Staff make up 72% of costs in these academies, say the authors.

“This means that schools will have little choice other than to cut teacher numbers to reduce financial losses in future.”

The report warns that cutting staff numbers and finding enough money for redundancy payments could accelerate some schools towards insolvency.
Nick Cudmore, report author and director at Duncan & Toplis, said school senior management teams already faced tough decisions.

“Schools are doing everything they can to save as much money as possible; cutting back on staff, replacing experienced teachers with less qualified people and going cap-in-hand to parents, but it still isn’t enough to avoid overspending.”

He said the academies in the report were also delaying repairs and putting off replacing obsolete technology, which he warned could be more expensive in the long run.

“The whole sector will be on the verge of insolvency if they have just two more years like this one.

“Accountants can work with governors to help them save every last penny possibly, but without significant increases in public funding, this could become a full-blown crisis,” he said.

On Friday, research by independent think tank the Educational Policy Institute found the number of council-run secondary schools falling into deficit had trebled to 26.1% in the four years to 2017.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43435689

Devon County Council: the place democracy goes to die

Facebook post by DCC Lib Dem Councillor Brian Greenslade

Late last year we started to learn about plans by the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and NHS England to introduce by the 1st April Accountable Care Organisations to replace CCG’s in the Health Service. These organisations would provide health and social care services. Bringing these services together makes sense but democratic oversight appeared to be an after thought. ACO’s seemed to be based on similar type Organisations in the US.

What was clear was that little or no public scrutiny of these proposals had happened. Congratulations to Sarah Wollaston MP Chairman of the Health Select Committee who then intervened to stall this initiative to allow the Parliamentary Health Select Committee chance to scrutinise the proposals. The same was true at Devon County Hall where nothing about this was brought to the attention of members of the Health Scrutiny Committee.

Opposition to ACO’s started to brew up so then suddenly the Government and NHS England started to talk about integrated care systems instead which apparently are different. How different is not clear and I am concerned that this could be a back door attempt to introduce ACO’s.

Yesterday at the DCC Cabinet a report by the Chief Executive about Integrated Care Systems was considered. It failed to answer key questions but it was clear that changes from April were on the way.

My Lib Dem colleagues and I hotly contested the recommendations and called for time to have this report sent to Scrutiny first. This was voted down by the Tory majority.

We reacted to this by calling in the Executive decision for scrutiny. This as the effect of delaying any decision on this being made until 11th April at the earliest to consider representations by Scrutiny.

Amazingly the Tories are rushing scrutiny through by making it an urgent item for the Health Scrutiny meeting on the 22nd of March giving little time for consideration of this critical issue for the health of the people of Devon.

Democratic standards that the Lib Dem’s stand for mean little to Devon’s ruling Tories!”

“Tory minister dodges questions on why Russians donate to his party and what they expect in return”

“A Tory minister has dodged a question asking him why Russians donate to his party and what they expect in return.

The Conservatives have received more than £820,000 in political donations from Russian oligarchs since Theresa May became Prime Minister.

This includes a £30,000 from the wife of a former Putin crony to dine with the defence secretary.

The widow of the murdered spy Alexander Litvinenko called on the Tories to return the donations telling the Prime Minister: “You need to be very careful who you are friends with.”

Transport secretary Chris Grayling was representing the government on Question Time.

But he ignored the question posed by presenter David Dimbleby who asked: “The point is why do they want to give money to the Tory Party, what do they get back from giving money to the Tory Party?”

Mr Grayling replied: “You can’t accept money from people who are not UK citizens or UK businesses.”

Russia Today presenter Afshin Rattansi hit back saying: “The wife of the former deputy finance minister, Putin’s former deputy finance minister Lubov Chernukhin at a fundraising event for Gavin Williamson the defence secretary of this country who protects national security in this country.”

Earlier this week Jeremy Corbyn was accused of politicising the Salisbury poison attack for criticising Russian donations to the Tory Party.

He told the House of Commons: “We’re all familiar with the way huge fortunes, often acquired in the most dubious circumstances in Russia, sometimes connected with criminal elements, have ended up sheltering in London and trying to buy political influence in British party politics,” he said.

“Meddling in elections, as the prime minister put it, and there has been over £800,000 worth of donations to the Conservative Party from Russian oligarchs and their associates.”

This evening Chris Grayling had no answer as to why those Oligarchs are so keen to donate to the Conservatives.

Instead he parroted the line about his party following electoral law saying: “We have clear rules about political donations, we follow those rules, they are properly scrutinised.

“What we must not do, we have a lot of people who are Russian, who are now UK citizens who live in London who’ve actually left Russia.”

He continued to say that those people should not be tarred with the same brush but he was interrupted by Afshin Rattansi who said: “This is the wife of the former deputy finance minister, where do you think she got the £30,000 to give the defence secretary?”

The Daily Mirror reported last month that the Tories had accepted £30,000 from the wife of a former crony of Vladimir Putin to dine with Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson .

The money was given by Lubov Chernukhin, who is married to ex-Russian deputy finance minister Vladimir Chernukhin, after she made a successful bid at last week’s Tory lavish Black and White Ball.

Her prize includes a private tour of Churchill’s War Rooms in Whitehall by the defence secretary before he hosts a dinner for her and a group of friends.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the Conservatives had repeatedly opposed Labour plans for tackling financial crime by Russians in the UK.

“Over the last two years the Tories have repeatedly opposed our plans for smashing money laundering by the oligarchs,” he wrote on Twitter.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-minister-dodges-questions-russians-12197819

LEP governance … in the wrong hands?

The report below states that the lead council for a Local Enterprise Partnership should exercise firm control over all aspects of the LEP’s governance and claims.

In our area that would be Somerset County Council.

Aaahhh … Owl has already foreseen a problem here:

Warning light for our LEP council partner’s finances (Somerset)

Public Accounts Committee: “Government still failing to get a grip on oversight of LEPs”

Owl can see almost no difference between governance and conflict of interest issues between Peterborough LEP and the Heart of the South West LEP at which exactly the same criticism can be made. Another post to follow on this later today.

“The Public Accounts Committee report finds case of Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough highlights persistent concerns about ‘complexity and confusion’ in devolution.

In 2016 the Committee of Public Accounts reported on the governance of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and made clear recommendations for improvement which were accepted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (the Department).

Despite this, the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership (GCGP LEP) provides the latest example of the Department devolving powers and funding to LEPs in a manner characterised by both complexity and confusion.

The Department needs to get its act together and assure taxpayers that it is monitoring how LEPs spend taxpayers’ money and how it evaluates results.

The Department assures us that there was no misuse of public funds in this instance; however, this is due more to luck than effective oversight given that there appear to have been no effective mechanisms in place for identifying conflicts of interest in GCGP LEP. We are not at all convinced that the issues uncovered in GCGP LEP might not be found elsewhere in other LEPs.

We also put on record our displeasure at the conduct of the former Chair of GCGP LEP when giving evidence. He failed to appreciate the importance of good governance, showed a lack of remorse about the outcome for GCGP LEP, and was evasive when questioned about his potential conflict of interest.

Such an attitude only serves to underline the need for the Department to get a grip of its oversight of LEPs. It needs to implement quickly the recommendations of Mary Ney’s review of Local Enterprise Partnership governance and transparency, ensure that all LEPs and their boards are aware of the Nolan Principles for the standards of conduct expected in public life and ensure that they live up to these principles in practice.

Chair’s comments
Comment from Committee Chair, Meg Hillier MP:

“Local Enterprise Partnerships are not an abstract concept on a Whitehall flipchart. They are making real decisions about real money that affect real people.

This troubling case only serves to underline our persistent concerns about the governance of LEPs, their transparency and their accountability to the taxpayer.

The Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership failed to comply with the standards expected in public life. Yet there are also clear failings in oversight by central government.

Taxpayers need to be assured their money is being spent wisely and with adequate protections in place to prevent its misuse.

Central government must move swiftly to ensure the recommendations of the Ney review are fully implemented and we expect to see evidence that this has happened.

But it must also do a far better job of explaining the objectives and anticipated benefits of these local partnerships to local people.

Taxpayers surveying the increasingly complex landscape of local government might reasonably ask what LEPs are for.

It is wholly unacceptable that central government does not have a clear, up-to-date answer to that question.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news-parliament-2017/cambridge-peterborough-lep-report-published-17-19/

Follow link for:

report summary
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/896/89605.htm
report conclusions and recommendations
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/896/89605.htm
full report: Governance and departmental oversight of the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/896/89602.htm

Developer refuses to build more homes

Guardian report:

“Theresa May is saying builders need to open up their land banks and develop more sites, while Berkeley is unwilling to aggressively ramp up production. With conditions in the capital starting to look more precarious, it’s easy to see why Berkeley has reservations. After all, adopting overly ambitious strategies just before the market turns has caught out many a builder over the years.

Its comments on the complexity of getting work started is a clear signal to the government that it believes the best way to move forward is not to churn through the land on its books, but to remove the red tape around the development process.

Property Week agree, saying that:

Berkeley Homes has positioned itself directly against prime minister Theresa May, by refusing to increase the number of homes it builds despite government threats to housebuilders to either build homes on their land or face planning blocks.

Sarah Gatehouse, real estate tax director at Grant Thornton, tweets that the ball is back in the PM’s court:

“Berkeley announces in trading update it won’t build more homes than forecast, citing high transaction costs, the 4.5 times income multiple limit on mortgage borrowing and prevailing economic uncertainty. What’s Theresa’s next move? #housing”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/mar/16/housebuilder-berkeley-group-homes-building-government-wetherspoons-trade-war-business-live

Number of secondary schools in deficit has ‘trebled’

Apparently, the South West is the region most being harmed by this underfunding.

“The number of state secondary schools falling into deficit in England has almost trebled in the last four years to more than a quarter, research says.
Analysis by independent think tank the Educational Policy Institute (EPI) found the proportion of local authority secondaries in deficit rose from 8.8% in 2013-14 to 26.1% in 2016-2017.
Its study of official figures also found a significant increase in the number primary schools in deficit.
The government disputed the findings.
The EPI report focuses on local authority schools because the data is publicly available. It excludes academies, which account for about 60% of secondaries and 20% of primaries in England.
The research adds to growing evidence of the financial struggles faced by a significant minority of schools.
This was highlighted during the General Election campaign as a major issue for voters.
The report also found two-thirds of council schools spent more than their income in 2016-17, while 40% have had balances in decline for at least two years in a row.
“For a significant proportion of schools in England, being able to meet the cost of annual staff pay increases from a combination of government funding and their own reserves looks highly unlikely, even in the short term,” said the report.
Jon Andrews, EPI’s director for school system and performance, said: “We are seeing an increasing number of schools spending more money than they have coming in and our analysis shows that increasing costs on staff are going to add to that pressure, even with the additional funding being delivered by the National Funding Formula. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43415477

A new council HQ? Oh, oh – this looks VERY familiar!

Owl has been doing some digging about how Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) tanked and has come up with some worrying information which resonates somewhat worryingly with our own area …

Remember that NCC built a new HQ and almost immediately had to attempt to buy its way out of debt by selling it and renting it back to themselves.

The new NCC HQ (One Angel Square) was originally going to cost £34 million, then £40 million, then £43 million, then £52 million, then £53 million. It was eventually delivered ‘under budget’!

But as costs rose, the size of the building was reduced by 20%. So effectively the cost doubled!

NCC built their new HQ to replace 12 existing buildings. Those 12 buildings were claimed to be costing £53,000 a week to run. It was later claimed that the new building would save £52,000 a week in running costs. Work that one out!

As soon as the new building opened, staff complained about the lack of space and the 20 minutes every morning sorting out their ‘hot desks’.

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-12/53m-project-combines-12-council-offices-into-one-building/

Some FAQs from the early consultations:

Q4: Isn’t this just building up debt for the county when it can ill afford it?

A4: This is a spend to save scheme. The county council will continue to take
opportunities like these to invest in new infrastructure which will ultimately reduce the debt. By doing nothing the debt position will get worse than undertaking the new build.

Q5: How can the council afford to build a huge new office block on the one
hand but on the other hand plead poverty and cut services or turn off street
lights? Couldn’t this money have been better used to protect services?

A5: It is by taking this step that will help us protect services. By maintaining the status quo and spending increasing amounts of money to maintain and operate old buildings that are no longer fit for purpose the council would be forced to redirect costs from front line services. By taking these proactive decisions now and saving building operating costs in the future it will allow those savings to either reduce debt or be spent on front line services.

Q6: Surely there’s a less expensive solution. Why don’t you convert one of
your buildings – like JDH – so it can take more people? That would be a far
cheaper solution.

A6: The other options have all been professionally evaluated. By looking at all the costs and benefits of the different options a new build at the Angel Street came out as the best option.”

https://www.northampton.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/7116/statement-of-community-involvement-pdf
(page 149)

Which all looks just a bit too familiar…

Bailing out Northamptonshire County Council would be “a reward for failure”

More on that scandal – so easily replicated when a few arrogant, ignorant officers and councillors, whose majority gives them the belief they cannot ever be challenged or scrutinised, think they can get away with anything …..

“Northamptonshire county council (NCC), which declared effective bankruptcy last month, should be scrapped, a devastating inspectors’ report into widespread financial and management failures at the authority has recommended.

A government-appointed investigator’s report said the problems at the council were so deep-rooted that it was impossible to rescue it in its current form, and to do so “would be a reward for failure”. It recommends that ministers send in a team of external commissioners to take over the day-to-day running of the council until it can be broken up and replaced with two new smaller authorities.

The lead inspector, Max Caller, said NCC had ignored a growing financial crisis at the authority, which he said had been beset by poor management, lack of scrutiny and unrealistic budget-setting.

Explaining why he advised breaking up the council, Caller’s report says: “The problems faced by NCC are now so deep and ingrained that it is not possible to promote a recovery plan that could bring the council back to stability and safety in a reasonable timescale.”

He added: “To change the culture and organisational ethos and to restore balance, would, in the judgment of the inspection team, take of the order of five years and require a substantial one-off cash injection. Effectively, it would be a reward for failure.”

It was unlikely councillors and the officers had the strength of purpose to bring the council back into line, he said. “A way forward with a clean sheet, leaving all the history behind, is required.”

The council’s leader, Heather Smith, resigned after the report’s publication, telling the BBC that she blamed “vicious attacks by four local MPs”, adding “you cannot win” if the “machinery of government turns against you”.

Responding to the report, Northampton North MP Michael Ellis called the management of the authority a national scandal. All seven local Tory MPs criticised the council last month saying they had no confidence in its leadership [too little too late!).

The report rejected the council leadership’s claim that it had been disadvantaged by government funding cuts and underfunded given the pressure of a growing and elderly population. Similar councils had coped with these pressures and Northamptonshire “was not the most disadvantaged shire council”, the report says.

It excoriates the council’s disastrous attempt to restructure services by outsourcing them to private companies and charities, the so-called Next Generation programme. Poor design, chaotic management, and a lack of controls and oversight meant that budgeting was “an exercise of hope rather than expectation”, it says.

It drily notes that it was not clear whether the programme was still in existence.“It would appear to have been abandoned but that is not clear,” the report says.

The council had lost control of its budgeting in 2013 after a critical Ofsted report into its children’s services forced an expensive overhaul of child protection services, and never recovered, the report says. It said the council’s approach to financial management came across as “sloppy, lacking in rigour and without challenge”.

There was a lack of realism in business plans, and savings targets were frequently not met. Senior councillors and officials ignored or evaded criticism and challenge, it says, and budgets were set by without regard to need, demand or deliverability. “Living within budget constraints is not a part of the culture at NCC,” the report concludes.

Although financial officials had raised the alarm about the extent of NCC’s growing finanical problems as far back as 2015, this had been ignored by senior management and councillors. There was a culture in NCC where “overspending is acceptable and there are no sanctions for failure”, the report says.

The council had continually patched up financial holes with one-off uses of reserves, or by selling off assets and using the proceeds. The report concludes: “This is not budget management.”

By the end relationships with public sector partners such as the NHS has deteriorated so much that there is a “significant level of distrust that NCC will ever be able to deliver against its promises and undertakiings”.

It noted that the councils’ staff were not to blame for the fiasco. “NCC employs many good, hardworking, dedicated staff who are trying to deliver essential services to residents who need and value what is offered and available. The problems the council faces are not their fault.”

Last month the council issued a section 114 note – the local government equivalent to bankruptcy – because it said it could not set a balanced budget for 2018-19.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/15/scrap-northampton-county-council-inspectors-say

Damning report on culture at insolvent Tory council

Anyone interested in how a council can go bad should read this relatively brief and easy-to-read report on the shenanigans which went on at Northamptonshire County Council prior to its technical insolvency. It was SO bad the Inspector recommends doing away with it entirely and creating two separate unitary authorities for a fresh start.

Full report here:

Click to access Best_Value_Inspection_NCC.pdf

Owl particularly “enjoyed”:

Section 3.46 – 3.52 – the behaviour of the Chief Executive and senior officers)

Section 3.78 – 3.84 – scrutiny (lack of)

Section 3.90 – 3.100 (role and function of the Audit Committee)

and Section 4.5

“The council did not respond well, or in many cases even react, to external and internal criticism. Individual councillors appear to have been denied answers to questions that were entirely legitimate to ask and scrutiny arrangements were constrained by what was felt the executive would allow. When external agencies reported adverse findings these were not reported with an analysis of the issues and either a justification or an action led response to a relevant decision taking body. At its most extreme, the two KPMG ISA 260 reports, stating an adverse opinion on Value For Money matters were just reported to the Audit Committee without comment and the unprecedented KPMG Advisory Notice issued under the 2014 Act was reported to full council without any officer covering report giving advice on what the response was recommended to be.

and 4.11:

“It is not possible to establish what action the corporate management team took in the face of all these issues as those meetings that took place were not minuted.”

As reported in the area’s local paper:

“Max Caller, an independent inspector, was called in by local government secretary Sajid Javid after allegations of financial mismanagement. He was also tasked with seeing if the local authority was being run properly by bosses and the cabinet’s Conservative councillors. …

His report, published this morning, says the origins of the crisis was the Ofsted inspection into Children’s Services in 2013 that caused emergency money to be pumped in, which meant the local authority ‘lost tight budgetary control’.

What came next was a poor response to the financial pressures, Mr Caller says, in effect chasing a heavily flawed model championed by departed CEO Paul Blantern.

He said: “Instead of taking steps to regain control, the council was persuaded to adopt a ‘Next Generation’ model structure as the solution.

“There was not then, and has never been, any hard-edged business plan or justification to support these proposals. Yet councillors, who might well have dismissed these proposals for lack of content and justification in their professional lives, adopted them and authorised scarce resources in terms of people, time and money to develop them.

“This did not and could not address the regular budget overspends which were covered by one off non-recurring funding sources.”

When the use of capital receipts to fund transformation was introduced by central government, Mr Caller says this was seized on as a way of supporting revenue spend – by classing some expenditure as ‘transformative’.

However until this week, there had been no report to full council – or anywhere else – that set out the specific transformation that was to be achieved, on a project-by-project basis. This goes against the terms of use of the money.

Despite his criticism of bosses, Mr Caller makes a point of separating the acts of managers and leaders from frontline staff.

He says: “NCC employs many good, hardworking, dedicated staff who are trying to deliver essential services to residents who need and value what is offered and available. The problems the council faces are not their fault.”

https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/inspector-s-verdict-two-new-councils-should-be-created-in-northamptonshire-by-2020-all-others-should-be-abolished-1-8416675

The buck stops with councils on outsourced services says Ombudsman

“Councils must ensure that accountability for any outsourced services is not lost when the service is delivered by an external contractor, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has told MPs.

In evidence to the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Michael King said: “Dealing with complaints about services outsourced to private or voluntary providers or delivered through other types of partnerships has been a growing dimension of our work across all areas we investigate.

“The law is clear: councils can outsource their services, but not the responsibility for them. Councils need to keep robust oversight of any organisations they contract with and have clear arrangements in place for how complaints will be dealt with.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34543%3Aaccountability-for-services-often-lost-when-they-are-outsourced-ombudsman&catid=59&Itemid=27