Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Privatisation, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

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)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Claire Wright, Consultation, Councillor Cathy Gardner EDA, DCC, EDDC, Health and Social Care (local), Martin Shaw (Seaton), NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Sarah Randall Johnson, Scrutiny, Transparency

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!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality, NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Cranbrook, Scrutiny, Sleaze

Comments

1 Comment

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Conflict of interest, NHS (local)

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Independent Councillors, Voting

Independents gaining more and more council seats countrywide

Labour and Conservatives lising to Independents – even in their heartlands and, in one case, on a single issue problem. Take elections held yesterday:

Wollaton West (Nottingham): Labour GAIN from Conservative.
* Farnworth (Bolton): Farnworth & Kearsley First GAIN from Labour.
* Oakham South East (Rutland): Independent GAIN from Conservative.
Rochester West (Medway): Labour GAIN from Conservative.
Northchurch (Dacorum): Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative
Droylsden East (Tameside): Labour HOLD
* Petersfield Bell Hill (East Hampshire): Independent GAIN from Conservative
Little Parndon & Hare Street (Harlow): Labour HOLD

* = Independent victories

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/opinion/politicshome/93453/update-election-breakdown-08032018

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish

Will East Devon MP Neil Parish will benefit from Exmoor Brexit initiative?

Well, he should, considering he is a former Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and for his entire career in the European Parliament he was a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (from January 2007 to July 2009 he was Chairman of the Committee AND he was appointed Conservative spokesman on agriculture and he was also the delegation’s deputy chief whip) …. and he farms from his family home on Exmoor.

Just a pity the test area isn’t in his Tiverton and Honiton constituency.

BUT what is it about East Devon that BOTH of our MPs choose not to have a home here (Swire’s second home is in Mid-Devon).

Still, on the bright side, at least his main interest isn’t the Middle East and, in particular, the Maldives!

“Exmoor’s farmers have received the backing of Cabinet minister Michael Gove MP.

Backed by the Exmoor Hill Farming Network, conservationists and local public bodies – Exmoor’s Ambition – aims to sustain and enhance Exmoor’s farmed landscapes and communities following the UK’s exit from the EU. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/exmoors-ambition-becomethe-test-bed-1312397

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon economy, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

Street trading in East Devon – when bureaucrats go wild!

Translation: we made what was supposed to be a simpler system MUCH more complicated and now we are frantically paddling under the water while trying to make it simpler again but, being bureaucrats, we are finding this difficult”. Good luck with that.

“… since the introduction of the new system last October, the council says that it has received commented that it can be confusing and inflexible.

… Now though the council has announced they will be reviewing the street trading policy with a view to removing the street trading application fee charge entirely, giving clearer guidance on the activities that do and don’t require consent, a less detailed application form with less supporting information required and a more streamlined procedure for processing the application. …

… Cllr Steve Hall, the chairman of the licensing and enforcement committee, said: “Having listened to our customers, the council has identified the need to make refinements to ensure that it delivers in the way which was intended.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/street-trading-rules-changed-too-1317267

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Somerset County Council, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

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

Owl wonders how our Local Enterprise Partnership will function with (at least) one partner council “showing financial stress” – and the lead partner which provides most of the administrative services to the LEP … and have some of those “fallen useable reserves” (fallen 60% in five years) “fallen” to the LEP – possibly even towards Hinckley C support?

As we do not get to see LEP accounts, we will never know.

“Three Conservative-run counties have been added to the list of those showing signs of financial stress because of funding cuts.

Somerset, Norfolk and Lancashire county councils are exhibiting some of the warning signs demonstrated by Northamptonshire county council before it declared itself effectively bankrupt last month, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The three join the Tory-run Surrey county council, which is facing a £100 million shortfall, as the counties in the deepest financial crises. The National Audit Office has found that one in ten councils could run out of money in the next three years. County councils have been hit hard by cuts to local government funding since 2010 and social care costs are rising.

Somerset, Norfolk and Lancashire’s usable reserves — effectively rainy day funds — have all fallen substantially in recent years, the bureau’s research found. Somerset’s usable reserves have fallen by 60 per cent in the past five years, Norfolk’s have halved and Lancashire’s have fallen by 48 per cent.

All three show further signs of financial difficulty. In Somerset the council overspent on children’s and adult’s social services in each of the past three years and its budget this year projects a £14.6 million overspend on children’s services, the largest in the country. Last month it announced plans to close two-thirds of its children’s centres.

In Norfolk the council has spent more than it budgeted for in each of the past three years, the bureau found, although the council disputed the claim it had been overspending and insisted its budgeting was “robust and prudent”.

Lancashire has overspent on children’s and adult social services in each of the past three years, and its funding gap is £97 million in the coming financial year.

A spokesman for Somerset said that the findings “overstate the position and don’t take account of our considerable contingency funds or the plans we have in place to make savings”. A Norfolk spokesman said the research was “scaremongering” and that the council had recently “set a balanced budget for 2018-19”. Angie Ridgwell, Lancashire’s chief executive, said: “There may be sufficient funds within the transitional reserve to support the identified budget gap in 2018-19 and 2019-20. However, further savings will need to be made.”

Source: The Times (paywall)

[Somerset county council has announced plans to close two thirds of its children’s centres in a bid to save cash]

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny

Conservative Middle East Council (and Swire) come in for some stick

Owl has no understanding of Middle East politics whatsoever, flying only over East Devon, but well-known journalist Peter Oborne (see below for credentials) does have such an understanding and has quite a lot to say about Hugo Swire, the Conservative Middle East Council and its donors in this fascinating article:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/why-uk-conservative-party-ignoring-palestine-cmec-focus-on-gulf-bahrain-uae-saudi-libya-israel-1824625298

Wiki: “Oborne is an associate editor of The Spectator and former chief political commentator of The Daily Telegraph, from which he resigned in early 2015. He is author of

The Rise of Political Lying and
The Triumph of the Political Class, and,
with Frances Weaver, the pamphlet Guilty Men.

He writes a political column for the Daily Mail and Middle East Eye. He sat as a Commissioner for the Citizens Commission on Islam, Participation and Public Life. He won the Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2012 and again in 2016.

Oborne is known for his acerbic commentary on the hypocrisy and apparent mendacity of contemporary politicians. …

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Oborne

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Monitoring Officer, Scrutiny, Standards Committee

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC has second-highest number of complaints about councillors and staff in Devon

North Devon Council recorded the most complaints at 87, with Exeter City Council recording the least with just two.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/revealed-330-complaints-made-devon-1309919

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, Lobbying, Monitoring Officer, Scrutiny, Standards Committee, Transparency

Comments

3 Comments

“Westminster councillor resigns after receiving nearly 900 gifts and hospitality packages in six years”

Owl says: what is happening to Westminster council’s Monitoring Officer, Leader and Standards Committee? Nothing, so far.

And NO-ONE should be Chair of a Planning Committee for SEVENTEEN years!

“The deputy leader of Westminster city council has stepped down after it was revealed he had received nearly 900 gifts and hospitality packages over six years.

Robert Davis, a Tory councillor, was the chair of the borough’s planning committee until last year.

He has stepped aside as deputy leader and cabinet member for business, culture and heritage as an independent QC investigates his conduct.

Councillor Robert Davis has referred himself to the City Council’s monitoring officer and has decided to stand aside as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Business, Culture and Heritage while the investigation is undertaken,” said Nickie Allen, the leader of Westminster City Council.

“Our residents need reassurance that the planning process is not only impartial, but is seen to be impartial,” she said, adding she had “asked the council’s chief executive to look at all aspects of the decision-making process to ensure planning is, and is seen as, an independent and impartial process.”

The Guardian revealed Mr Davis had received gifts and hospitality invitations 893 times over the last six years, which frequently came from property developers who were seeking planning permission.

Gifts and hospitality packages worth more than £25 must be declared and some of the items and invitations received by Mr Davis exceeded the figure.

The Cambridge graduate is the longest serving member of the council, having been elected in 1982. He was voted Conservative councillor of the year in 2014 and given an MBE in 2015 for his service to local and government planning.

“I think it’s important to recognise Robert Davis remains a candidate for the May election,” Adam Hug, leader of the Labour Group, told The Independent. “He remains a councillor.

“This move has been described as standing aside, with a clear view that if no legal wrongdoing is found he may return to his post. As he remains a candidate it is clear that the Tories believe what is known and not disputed is acceptable for them.”

He added: “Westminster Tories knew this was going on, did nothing for decades, and it is clear that unless legal wrongdoing is found, he may return to his post.”

In a statement, Mr Davis said: “Due to the ongoing interest and wrongful assertions regarding my time as chairman of planning I have decided to step aside from my roles as deputy leader and cabinet member for business, culture and heritage whilst the council investigates.

“In 17 years as chairman of planning committees which granted hundreds of applications and resulted in the council receiving substantial sums for affordable housing, public realm and other public amenity, I have at all times acted with the independence and probity required by my role.

“My desire to rigorously declare all meetings and hospitably, regardless of its nature, underpins this transparency and independence. It is trite to confirm that within these 17 years, I have got to know many of the developers and associated professionals who work in the city and help to develop Westminster into one of the most important economic centres in the country and home to over 280,000 people. Any suggestion or implication that I have done anything other than to further the interests of the city and its residents are baseless and strenuously denied.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westminster-councillor-robert-davis-gifts-hospitality-bribery-investigation-corruption-planning-a8245626.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

Labour MP calls for investigation into Swire’s Conservative Middle East Council

Image: Saudi Crown Prince’s UK visit PR

Swire retains a massive interest in the Middle East via his chairmanship of the Conservative Middle East Council. He visits many Middle East Countries and is often around at the same time as British arms companies, and hosts many visits and seminars as well as hosting Middle Eastern potentates and politicians in the UK. We have reported on the group’s controversial funders (see below). Now a Labour MP has called for an inquiry into the group. He is particularly concerned about UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia being used in their war with Yemen:

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire

Comments

1 Comment

Swire still can’t let go of his old Foreign Office job and The Maldives

One has to feel sorry for poor old Swire. Once upon a time he swanned round the Middle East as a Foreign Office Minister. Now, he STILL swans around the area as Chairman of the Cobservative Middle East Council (salary £2,000 per month plus expenses) with its ties to somewhat controversial donors:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/02/12/swires-conservative-middle-east-committee-accused-of-bias-towards-gulf-arab-states/

Swire succeeded in getting a special adjournment debate about the country in which he took an inordinate amount of interest when he was a Minister of State at the Foreign Office. And during this debate he spoke very knowledgeably about its tourism situation:

“The Maldives economy remains a tourism driven economy in that it contributes more than 25% of the country’s GDP. While the tourism sector supplies more than 70% of the foreign exchange earnings to the country, one third of the Government revenue is generated from this sector. Tourism is also known as the leading employment generator in the country. In 2016, tourism contributed 36.4% to the Government revenue. But as a result of the current situation, the Maldives is facing financial ruin, with the tourism industry estimated to be losing $20 million a day since the start of the state of emergency. If the trend continues, it will lead to unemployment and dissatisfaction, to my way of thinking both active recruiting sergeants for radicalisation, and with our tourists spread out over 115 square miles in 105 resorts it is almost impossible to guarantee their safety.”

But it seems that the current Minister of State at the Foreign Office is rather fed up of his predecessor’s continuing interference in his area:

“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend Sir Hugo Swire for securing this debate. During his time as one of my predecessors in the office I currently hold, he was tireless in his efforts to improve the political and human rights situation for all the people of the Maldives. I pay great tribute to him for his continued commitment to this cause and share his disappointment and alarm at the recent deterioration in the political outlook in the Maldives”

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-03-06b.277.3&s=speaker%3A11265#g279.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality

Comments

2 Comments

The human cost of austerity cuts

“One in ten councils faces running out of money in the next three years after exhausting its reserves to pay the dramatically rising cost of social care, the government’s financial watchdog has concluded.

The National Audit Office (NAO) warned that many councils were on the verge of insolvency having had their central government funding cut by almost 50 per cent in eight years. It found that authorities’ financial positions had “worsened markedly” since they were last audited in 2014, with two thirds of councils with social care responsibilities dipping into their reserves last year. The report also revealed that government cuts had led councils to:

• Reduce the number of households having their bins collected each week by 33 per cent since 2011;

• Cut the number of food hygiene checks on cafés and restaurants by 40.9 per cent;

• Make savings of £1.6 billion by closing Sure Start centres and services for young people.

In addition, bus route subsidies have been cut by 48 per cent, 10 per cent of libraries have been shut and 67 per cent fewer health and safety enforcement notices are being handed out.

The NAO found that despite these cuts, councils were still unable to balance their books because of the increased demand for social care combined with cost pressures such as the new national minimum wage. It said that the estimated number of people aged over 65 in need of care had increased by 14.3 per cent. Social care accounts for 54.4 per cent of local authorities’ total service spending, up from 45.3 per cent in 2010-11.

As a result, 66 per cent of local authorities with social care responsibilities drew on their reserves last year. The NAO said that at the current rate of deficit 10 per cent of councils would have exhausted their reserves by 2020.

Last month Northamptonshire county council had to impose strict in-year spending controls after effectively going bankrupt. The Timesrevealed that Surrey, Britain’s richest county, is facing a £100 million cash crisis. Councils are not legally allowed to run up deficits and so they would be forced to cut services to ensure they remained solvent. Many of the councils affected are in solid Conservative areas. Surrey, for example, is a county represented at Westminster by seven government ministers.

Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said that while the government had given local councils several “short-term cash injections” this funding had only been available for adult social care and uncertainty remained over the long-term financial plan for the sector.

Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said funding cuts had led to “stark choices” about which services local authorities continue to provide. “Many councils are raiding their rainy day funds to pay for social care, and we have seen Northamptonshire reach the brink of financial failure,” she said.

A government spokesman said councils needs and resources were being reviewed and a real-terms increase had been provided over the next two years.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Blackhill Quarry, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, NPPF, Rural communities, Scrutiny, Sustainability, Woodbury

Blackill Engineering Extension – is this an excuse to drive a new industrial site into the heart of the Pebblebed Heaths?

These days most large developers pay for pre-application advice before submitting a planning application. A recent Freedom of Information request has uncovered the advice that was offered to someone (name redacted) seeking such advice on proposed business units at Blackhill Quarry, Woodbury in early October 2017.

Specifically this proposal was for the erection of AN ADDITIONAL industrial building to support the existing business, Blackhill Engineering, being operated form the site together with the erection of FIVE ADDITIONAL industrial buildings for use by other businesses.

In summary the advice given was that this would not comply with the protective policies that cover this sensitive site. A much stronger employment benefit case regarding the expansion of the existing business to justify a departure from these policies would be needed. The five speculative industrial buildings would not justify a policy departure.

On 20 December 2017, within three months of this advice, planning application 17/3022/MOUT was submitted for outline application seeking approval of access for construction of up to 3251 sqm (35,000 sq ft) of B2 (general industrial) floor space with access, parking and associated infrastructure.

The accompanying justification reads:

“There is considerable and clearly identified need for the existing business at Blackhill Engineering to expand as a result of that business having grown considerably over recent years and with its existing premises now at full capacity. The provision of additional facilities on the application site would allow the company to continue its expansion and so deliver additional economic and employment benefits to the local area…. With the winding down of the existing quarry use of the site, there is a short and fortuitous window of opportunity in which to address BESL’s growth requirements with the reuse of an area of former minerals processing site….It is a crucial part of both local and national employment strategy to protect existing businesses and to encourage their expansion. If approved, the scheme would allow the existing business not to only remain at the site but also to expand. The resulting investment will enable a substantial increase in the provision of highly skilled jobs in the area, increased training opportunities for apprentices and added value to the local economy. Furthermore, the expansion of the Blackhill Engineering will help reinforce the vitality of its parent organisation…”

So, is this application all about the needs of Blackhill Engineering to expand, having already designed flood defence gates for New York City Hospital, worked for the European Space Agency and the pier at Hinkley Point, which in October seemed to require only one building; or more about Clinton Devon Estates trying to generate rent from a new industrial park? Restoration provides no income.

For those interested here is the detailed pre-application advice, given on an informal basis and without prejudice, in about half the words:

“The extant planning permission on the site requires a restoration and aftercare scheme to be implemented following cessation of the quarrying operations. As part of this condition, alternative schemes (subject to planning permission) can be considered but two policies are of particular relevance:

East Devon Local Plan- Strategy 7 – Development in the Countryside.

This strategy states that development in the countryside “will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development”. In this instance, there is no local or neighbourhood plan which would permit the proposal and, therefore, it is considered that it would not comply with Strategy 7.

East Devon Local Plan- Policy E5 – Small scale Economic Development in Rural Areas.

This policy states that the expansion of existing businesses designed to provide jobs for local people will be permitted where

1. it involves the conversion of existing buildings. Or

2. if new buildings are involved, it is on previously developed land. Or

3. if on a greenfield site, shall be well related in scale and form and in sustainability terms to the village and surrounding areas.

In this instance, the Local Planning Authority recognise the previously developed nature of the site, however, in the ‘Glossary of Terms’ section of the Local Plan (which echoes those contained in the National Planning Policy Framework) previously developed land specifically excludes land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures.

Accordingly, the land would be considered as greenfield.
In terms of Policy E5, as the site would not be well related in sustainability terms to Woodbury or surrounding areas, the proposal would be contrary to policy.

However, if sufficient justification can be made in terms of the needs of the existing business being operated from the site to expand into an additional building, then the economic benefits may outweigh the environmental harm, of the unsustainable location as a departure from the Local Plan.

For this purpose, an economic benefits statement would need to be submitted as part of an application.

The five speculative units being located in an unsustainable location would not be acceptable.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Corruption, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze

“Tories seek to block move to reveal donations to DUP in EU referendum”

Imagine if this was Corbyn paying off the Lib Dems with £1 billion and then agreeing to keep all Lib Dem referendum donations secret – what would the Conservative Party be saying and doing?

“Ministers will whip Conservative MPs to block a move to reveal donations to the DUP during the EU referendum, which Labour has said is “doing the party’s dirty work”.

The government is set to help the Northern Irish party conceal details of past political donations, including a highly controversial sum given during the referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.

The rules on transparency were to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK, which first introduced in legislation in 2014 with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.

However, the government has since said the transparency rules will apply from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 will not be made public.

The shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Smith, said it was outrageous that the government would not backdate the donations rules.

“All parties in Northern Ireland apart from the DUP support the government’s previous promise to publish. There is simply no excuse to not publish the donations,” he said.

“The Tories must explain why they are doing the DUP’s dirty work by helping them avoid publishing the source of the funds received in the EU referendum. Those funds played a significant part in the referendum campaign across the UK and the public have a right to know precisely where that money came from.”

Serious questions remain over the DUP’s spending on the EU referendum in June 2016 – including a £435,000 donation from a group called the Constitutional Research Council (CRC), chaired by Richard Cook, a former vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservatives and Unionist party.

The DUP spent more than £280,000 of that money on a wraparound advertisement in the London-based Metro newspaper, which is not distributed in Northern Ireland.

On Monday night, the government attempted to enact the transparency rules in the legislation via statutory instrument, a process which allows the provisions of an act of parliament to come into force or be altered without parliament having to debate them.

However, after objections by Labour at the last-minute nature of the SI, the measure will now be put to a vote on Wednesday, where the party will attempt to get the law backdated to its introduction in 2014. Conservative MPs are under a three-line whip to oppose.

A Labour source said: “The government tried to pull a fast one and got their minister to sit down early so they could vote on the SIs last night rather than deferred on Wednesday. We stopped it but it’s very unusual and shows the nervousness on this, especially the NI political donations.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/tories-seek-to-block-move-to-reveal-donations-to-dup-in-eu-referendum

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Baker Estates, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Honiton/ Gittisham, Housing (local), Planning System

“How Bristol is standing up to developers”

East Devon developers do not disclose their viability agreements – EDDC thinks they should remain confidential because they contain “commercially sensitive information” yet Bristol disagrees and publishes theirs.

Baker Estates in Honiton have been allowed to reduce the number of affordable properties, using such a confidential document.

“Last autumn, campaigners scored an unprecedented victory. The target was “viability assessments”: dossiers produced by housing developers to justify the amount of affordable housing – or lack thereof – in their developments, and which are frequently used during the construction process to shrug off previous commitments.

“Developers were saying, ‘We can’t afford to put 30-40% affordable housing in here,’ to make the profits they are legally entitled to,” says Louise Herbert, spokesperson for Bristol-born tenants union Acorn. “But all of their numbers – how much they projected to sell the houses for, how much they bought the land for – were redacted.”

Acorn, along with the Bristol Cable media co-operative, campaigned for the full release of these files. Following a public outcry, the council voted to make the viability assessments public.

Now, Herbert says, the public can examine these assessments themselves, and make sure that more affordable housing is built in their areas.

In response, Andrew Whitaker, planning director at the Home Builders Federation (HBF), argues that those without formal training “may feel that the figures set out in such assessments are ‘too high’ or ‘too low’ and make representations and decisions accordingly, rather than based on the evidence.”

For now, it’s too soon to tell if publishing the viability assessments has achieved change in Bristol. But it’s a small step that could point the way for cities such as London, where viability assessments remain pervasive, or Manchester, where in contravention of the city’s own guidelines, none of the nearly 15,000 planned new developments have any provision for affordable housing.

Bristol’s mayor, Marvin Rees, believes that it sends a signal to developers: “We’re a great city to do business in – but we want the right kind of money.”

Councillor Paul Smith agrees. “Housing can’t be left to the market if you want to meet the housing needs of the whole city,” he says. “There are 500 families in temporary accommodation, 100 people sleeping rough on the streets, huge numbers who are inadequately housed, and people living in poor-quality, high-rent accommodation.”…

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/07/bristol-housing-developers-affordable-property

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System, Sleaze

McCarthy & Stone demands exemption from ground rent charges

“The market leader in developing retirement homes has urged the government to exempt it from plans to reduce ground rents on new long leases to zero.

McCarthy & Stone used a trading update for the first half of its year to say that it was working in a state of uncertainty and wanted “swift clarification” on the new rules.

Last summer the government said that it would ban the sale of new houses on a leasehold basis and was setting all ground rents on long leases to zero, including on newly built flats.

McCarthy & Stone, which controls 70 per cent of the retirement housing market, specialises in flats and sells most of them leasehold, with the freehold sold to private companies. It argues that this allows it to afford more land to build more homes for the elderly.

The ground rent charged by the private investors starts at about £450 per year and rises in line with the retail prices index every 15 years. Last year McCarthy & Stone made 4 per cent of its revenue, about £27 million, by selling freeholds to investors.

Clive Fenton, chief executive, said: “We believe that there is a strong case for a very specific exemption for the retirement housebuilding sector and we are seeking swift clarification.

“Until this is received, we continue planning to mitigate the potential impact on the business, including maintaining discipline around our cash position and adopting a more measured approach to securing land.” First-half revenue is expected to be broadly flat from the previous year at £240 million.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Baker Estates, Developers/ Development, Honiton/ Gittisham, Planning System

“Planners back REDUCTION of affordable homes in Honiton”

“… Councillors voted by 13 votes to one on Tuesday afternoon to allow the application, but not until Cllr Jenny Bond asked the committee to remember the 26 affordable homes and the families who would miss out when voting on it.

She had earlier added: “We have lived and breathed this application for many years through gritted teeth but this is disappointing as there is a real need for affordable housing in Honiton and Gittisham. The current offer is 90 affordable with £500,000 offsite, which equates to four houses, so the net loss is 26 families in desperate need of an affordable house who have to wait.

“With my heart I would recommend refusal and vote against it, but my head says that we have to vote with the recommendation and not waste public money on appeal. But to lose 26 affordable houses is unforgivable.”

Cllr David Barratt said: “I will propose approval as we need to vote with our heads on this one, even though affordable housing is incredibly important.”

The committee was told by development manager for EDDC Chris Rose that the applicants have submitted the request as they believe that current planning policy would support a reduction in the provision of affordable housing down to 25 per cent, if a new planning application were to be submitted.

The planning officers’ report advised that while there is a chance that Baker Estates may not be able to successfully argue 25 per cent affordable housing provision as part of a new planning application, there is an equal chance that such a proposal would be acceptable should an application be submitted and determined on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.

Graham Hutton, Development Director at Baker Estates had said: “We think that we are making a very fair offer. We have consulted at length with the local ward members, as well as with both Gittisham Parish Council and Honiton Town Council, to make sure that we get this right.

“What is now on the table is a proposal to provide 31 per centaffordable housing, as well as a far better mix of homes and a further £500,000 off-site contribution. This provides the best chance of securing the swift delivery of 90 affordable homes for the local area – it’s worth bearing in mind that fewer than 10 affordable homes have been built in Honiton in the past decade.

“Only by reaching agreement at the local level today is it possible to offer a package this generous, as the costs of appeal or a new application would prohibit it. An agreement today will allow us to continue delivery of the homes and this will make a huge difference to Honiton and Gittisham.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/planners-back-reduction-affordable-homes-1305831