“The House of Lords is a rolling expenses scandal – now politicians must act”

“At the end of 2015, the ERS conducted an audit of the House of Lords, Fact vs Fiction. It challenged claims that the Lords is a beacon of independence and professional diversity and demonstrated the huge democratic and financial cost.

Indeed, in the 2010-2015 parliament, £360,000 was claimed by peers in years they failed to vote once. On independence, over a third of Lords (34%) previously worked in politics.

The research also found that the Lords represents only a small section of society: 44 percent of Lords listed their main address in London and the South East, while 54 percent were 70 or older. More members have worked in the Royal Household than in manual jobs.

But the problems of an unrepresentative, inefficient and growing house have not improved since those revelations. The ERS’ new report, The High Cost of Small Change: The House of Lords Audit, shows that 109 peers failed to speak at all in the 2016/17 session. Sixty-three of those claimed expenses – claiming a total of £1,095,701.

More shockingly, 33 peers have claimed nearly half a million pounds between them while failing to speak, table a written question or serve on a committee in the past year. Particularly at a time when Parliament is dealing with major legislative upheaval, this kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

We know the upper house is grossly oversized. But we also know that the bulk of the work of the Lords is carried out by a smaller number of peers. The top 300 voting peers account for over 64% of all votes in divisions during the 2016/17 session – suggesting much of the work of the Lords is done by a minority of peers.

Indeed, nearly 1 in 10 of the peers eligible to vote throughout 2016/17 (9.2% – 72 of the 779) are inactive when it comes to scrutinising the government’s work on committees, in the chamber, or through written questions – vital roles for the revising chamber.

This is something that is finally being recognised by the upper house. The Lord Speaker’s Committee on the size of the House was set up to discuss how to shrink the supersized second chamber. In October 2017, they released their plans to reduce the size of the Lords to 600 in 11 years and move to 15 year terms by 2042. But by that time NASA plans to have landed humans on Mars.

Calls for reform are often dismissed on the basis that the Lords is a bastion of independence. We can reveal the truth is far from it. Our analysis shows that nearly 80 percent of Conservative peers didn’t once vote against the government last year.

Of the Labour peers who voted, 50 percent voted against the government more than 90 percent of the time. And non-partisan crossbenchers often don’t turn up – over 40 percent voted fewer than 10 times last year: leaving decisions in the hands of the party whips.

Finally, the House hosts 184 ex-MPs, 26 ex-MEPs, 11 ex-MSPs, 8 ex-Welsh AMs, 6 ex-London AMs, 11 ex-MLAs and 39 current or ex-council leaders, as of April 2017. Rather than an independent chamber, the Lords is increasingly being used as a retirement home or a gift to those no longer wanted by parties.

The ERS are calling for a much smaller, fairly-elected upper house the public can have faith in. Around two thirds of voters agree in both the need for a drastic cut in its size, and for it to be largely elected.

This report lays out the state of Britain’s second chamber today. It’s now up to politicians to meet the challenge – before trust in our democracy falls even further.”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/money-for-nothing-weve-audited-the-house-of-lords/

The full reportis here:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-high-cost-of-small-change/

Austerity to continue unabated for NHS and social care

Lord Porter, Chairman, Local Government Association:

… It is hugely disappointing that the Budget offered nothing to ease the financial crisis facing local services. Funding gaps and rising demand for our adult social care and children’s services are threatening the vital services which care for our elderly and disabled, protect children and support families. This is also having a huge knock-on effect on other services our communities rely on. Almost 60p in every £1 that people pay in council tax could have to be spent caring for children and adults by 2020, leaving increasingly less to fund other services, like fixing potholes, cleaning streets and running leisure centres and libraries.

“Adult social care services are essential to keeping people out of hospital and living independent, dignified lives at home and in the community and alleviating the pressure on the NHS. Simply investing more money into the NHS while not addressing the funding crisis in adult social care is not going to help our joint efforts to prevent people having to go into hospital in the first place.

“The money local government has to run services is running out fast and councils face an overall £5.8 billion funding gap in just two years. The Government needs to use the upcoming Local Government Finance Settlement to set out its plan for how it will fund local services both now and in the future. We remain clear that local government as a whole must be able to keep every penny of business rates collected to plug funding gaps while a fairer system of distributing funding between councils is needed.

“Only with fairer funding and greater freedom from central government to take decisions over vital services in their area can local government generate economic growth, build homes, strengthen communities, and protect vulnerable people in all parts of the country. … ”

Cllr Izzi Seccombe, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Community Wellbeing Board:

“It is a completely false economy to put money into the NHS while not addressing the funding crisis in adult social care. This sends a message that if you need social care, you should go to hospital.

“If government wants to reduce the pressures on the health service and keep people out of hospital in the first place, then it needs to tackle the chronic underfunding of care and support services in the community, which are at a tipping point.

“In addition, central government’s cuts to councils’ public health budgets, which fund vital prevention work that improves the health of children, young people and adults, reducing the need for treatment later down the line and also easing the pressure on the NHS, need to be reversed.

“Adult social care needs to be placed on an equal footing to the NHS. It is clear that the public understands this, as adult social care was a central talking point in the recent general election. It is therefore deeply disappointing that government has today chosen not to capitalise on this momentum.

“While the announcement of a green paper next summer shows government recognises the need for long-term reform, this does nothing to address the immediate pressures older and disabled people are facing. Those who desperately rely on care and support on a daily basis cannot be left to make do while waiting for yet another review. They want action now.

“The £2 billion over three years announced in the Spring Budget was a step in the right direction, and councils have been effectively using this money, for example to reduce delayed transfers of care. However this was one-off funding and is not a long-term solution.

“Adult social care still faces an annual funding gap of £2.3 billion by the end of the decade. As a minimum government needs to plug this gap urgently to ensure services can keep on running and stop providers going bust, while we have the bigger conversation around how we secure a long-term sustainable future for social care.”

Grant Thornton (auditors)

““Continued investment into the NHS is necessary but the announcement today didn’t even cover the current deficit forecast until 2020.

Social care continues to be the main driver on demand in council spending and yet received no mention; a very obvious omission.

In 2011/12, social care accounted for around 28.9% of total service expenditure and rose to 30.16% in 2015/16, indicative of the growing demand that is not being met.

In particular, children’s services have faced challenging savings targets and very difficult decisions over a number of years and in 2015/16 73% of all councils overspent against their children’s social care services budget as they struggled to produce more with less.

By avoiding addressing this issue directly and continuing to invest elsewhere in the health and social care system the Chancellor is missing a valuable opportunity by choosing to invest in only the roof while the house around it is crumbling. …”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Swire’s donors and Parish’s lack of them

A recent comment got Owl digging into donations to out two MPs. Direct personal donations rather than those to the Conservative Party. All donations over £7,500 have to be registered here:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/171113/contents.htm#P

This register was last updated on 13 November 2017 and covers only this current Parliament 2017-2019.

In the most recent list of donors to individual MPs, the largest donation to East Devon MP Hugo Swire is of £10,000 from a Mrs Rosemary Said.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/171113/swire_hugo.htm

Might this be the wife of arms dealer Wafic Said?

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

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/29/business.politics

“Syrian-born Wafic Said is reported to be a ‘former operator of a kebab restaurant who made millions in commissions on a 1985 British Aerospace arms deal to sell Tornado fighters to the Saudi royal family’.[1] Said’s chief Saudi patron is reported to be Prince Bandar.[1]

Rosemary Said has given the Conservative Party almost £580,000 and is reportedly a member of David Cameron’s Leaders’ Group of elite donors that enjoy direct access to the UK prime minister by virtue of donating more than £50,000 a year.”

and here:
http://powerbase.info/index.php/Rosemary_Said

and good to see a billionaire member of Swire’s family ( Sir Adrian Swire)
chipping in £5,000:

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

By contrast, Tiverton and Honiton MP Neil Parish declares zero donations:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/171113/parish_neil.htm

Independent EDA Councillor Shaw continues the fight for our local NHS

Thank goodness for (truly) independent councillors!

“PRESS RELEASE

Devon County Council’s Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee will ask both the NEW Devon and South Devon & Torbay Clinical Commissioning Groups, which commission services in community hospitals, and NHS Property Services, which now owns the hospitals, to its next meeting on 25 January to report on the future of the hospitals now that most of them have lost their in-patient beds.

The Scrutiny Committee decided to request the discussion at its meeting yesterday (21st) after concerns were raised by Cllr Martin Shaw, who represents Seaton and areas close to Honiton, both places where hospital beds closed this summer. Cllr Shaw is pressing for the contributions to community hospitals made by local communities and Leagues of Friends to be taken into account in planning their futures, and had presented a paper on the subject to the Committee’s September meeting.

Cllr Shaw raised particular concerns over the high rents to be charged by NHS Property Services, the fact that the CCG is committed to paying for space only until the end of the current financial year, and that the CCG has specifically said that existing outpatient services are not guaranteed to continue.

‘Many services can be delivered in community hospitals’, Cllr Shaw emphasised after the meeting. “We should be talking about increasing not reducing the provision close to where patients live. If most services are concentrated in the RD&E, patients will continue to face long journeys into Exeter. With deteriorating public transport many will have to drive in and contribute to the city’s ever-growing congestion. We need joined-up planning at Devon and local levels to make the best use of the hospitals, which are community assets whoever is the legal owner.’

The motion to invite the NHS organisations was proposed by Cllr Claire Wright (Independent) and seconded by Cllr Nick Way (Liberal Democrat).

Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton”

South West and our LEP snubbed in budget

Lots of “talking up” by LEP members tonight – but nothing to talk up except competitive access to general “funds” that rarely seem to materialise.

Not the brightest buttons in the budget box then …!

“The Westcountry has been snubbed in major funding pledges for the UK regions.

In his budget statement yesterday, Chancellor Philip Hammond gave special mention to the Northern Power House, Midlands Engine, and high speed rail HS2 with half of a £1.7bn transforming cities pots pledged to six elected metro mayor regions.

Tim Jones, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, said: “We have been snubbed and I’m afraid to say it, but it’s the Cinderella South West yet again.” …

… Chris Garcia, Chief Executive of the HoSW LEP said that region is primed with potential to help create the “global Britain” that the Chancellor referred to in his speech.

“However, we were disappointed not to be name checked in the speech or the budget, and that the focus is very much on specific cities with particular emphasis on those that have opted for an elected Mayor.

“It’s our aim, along with our partners in business, the local authorities and the other south west LEPs, to demonstrate the immense contribution that can be delivered from our potentially thriving region: The Great South West – which can rival the economies of the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine. We need to drive this message home to the front benches of Westminster and show the country what we’re worth.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/business/how-westcountry-been-left-hanging-818747

“Philip Hammond’s housebuilding company has sat on undeveloped housing plot for 7 years”

First, it should be noted that MANY of the Daily Telegraph’s readers are sitting in undeveloped housing plots!

and

Second, they don’t mention the company’s financial interest in nursing homes.

It’s a story they are pushing to attempt to get him out as he seems to be perceived as much too wimpy for the Telegraph on Brexit, but nevertheless it is a topical story, and throws up some interesting issues.

Naturally, Hammond says it is a blind trust so he’s not responsible for its decisions. However, companies have the option of behaving morally and responsibly, particularly if they are aware that their ultimate beneficial owner occupies a high-profile position where a possible potential conflict of interest will be magnified by the public gaze.

“A housebuilding business founded by Philip Hammond has been accused of sitting on an undeveloped plot of land which has been granted planning permission for four new homes.

Castlemead Limited, which was co-founded by the Chancellor in 1984, builds new homes and doctor’s surgeries.

It has been reported that Castlemead Group, which is majority-owned by the company, was granted permission to build four homes in north Wales in June 2010 on the condition work on the site would begin within five years.

However, The Times report that the site still remains undeveloped.

Mr Hammond resigned as a director of the company in 2010, but his sole entry in the most recent House of Commons’ MPs’ register makes reference to the fact that he is “a beneficiary of a trust which owns a controlling interest in Castlemead Ltd, a company engaged in construction, house building and property development”.

The revelation comes after Mr Hammond gave an interview with The Sunday Times this week, in which he hit out at house builders who are sitting on hundreds of thousands of undeveloped plots of land which have planning permission for new homes.

He said: “We are generating planning permissions at a record rate.“It’s builders banking land, it’s speculators hoarding land, it’s local authorities blocking development.”

Mr Hammond resigned as a director in 2010 and does not have any direct influence over the company’s activities.

A spokeswoman for Mr Hammond said: “Any shares in Castlemead are held in a trust. The chancellor has no direct influence or involvement and so is unable to comment.”

Castlemead did not respond to The Telegraph’s request for comment.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/22/philip-hammonds-housebuilding-company-has-sat-undeveloped-housing/

Hinkley Point – the case against grows stronger – part 2

MOwl’s view: meanwhile, all those board members (and former board members) of our LEP with nuclear interests are very happy – those providing the roads to the site, those building houses near the site, those recruiting staff for the site, those building new facilities for site workers and extending their colleges and universities on the back of nuclear training courses they will run. It really doesn’t matter if it is a Somerset white elephant.

AND they are using OUR money for this.

”The government has saddled families with inflated household bills for decades because of the poor deal it negotiated over the Hinkley Point nuclear plant in Somerset, MPs have said.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) criticised a contract awarded to EDF to build the first new nuclear station in Britain since 1995 as too expensive, with the burden falling most heavily on poorer households.

Meg Hillier, the committee’s chairwoman, accused the government of “grave strategic errors” in crafting the deal, which will leave consumers paying £30 billion in subsidies over 35 years — five times more than expected.

“Bill-payers have been dealt a bad hand by the government in its approach to this project,” she said. “Its blinkered determination to agree the Hinkley deal, regardless of changing circumstances, means that for years to come energy consumers will face costs running to many times the original estimate.”

The government signed a preliminary deal in 2013 with EDF, the French state-owned nuclear generator, to pay a fixed price of £92.50 per megawatt hour for the electricity produced by the Hinkley station for 35 years, indexed to inflation. The costs are to be met via a levy on consumer bills once the station enters service, expected to add £10 to £15 a year to the average household bill.

But when wholesale energy prices plunged sharply in 2014, amid growing doubts over the French reactor technology earmarked for use at Hinkley, following delays and cost overruns at other plants, the government failed to revisit the terms.

The PAC accused ministers of pressing ahead and locking consumers into an expensive deal.

“The economics of nuclear power in the UK have deteriorated since the government last formally considered its strategic case for nuclear in 2008,” the report said. “Estimated construction costs have increased while alternative low-carbon technologies have become cheaper. At the same time, fossil-fuel price projections have fallen.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said that it was a “competitive deal”.

EDF Energy said: “The cost of Hinkley Point C for customers has not changed and they will pay nothing for its reliable, low carbon electricity until the station is completed . . . Construction is fully under way and is already delivering a huge benefit to British jobs, skills and industrial strategy.”

Hannah Martin, head of energy at Greenpeace UK, said the PAC report showed that the government should revisit the project because it “makes absolutely no financial sense”.

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Hinkley Point – the case against grows stronger – part 1

See part 2 (above) for Owl’s cynical view. Things MUST be bad if The Times and The Guardian agree!

MPs have accused the government of failing to protect consumers over the price it has promised to pay for power from the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant.

The Commons public accounts committee said the subsidy contract for Hinkley Point C, agreed in 2016 after years of delays, would hit poorest households hardest.

The power station is expected to cost billpayers £30bn over the lengthy of the 35-year contract, adding £10-£15 to the average household energy bill.

Hinkley nuclear site radioactive mud to be dumped near Cardiff
But an assessment by the committee concluded that no one in Whitehall was championing consumers’ interests during negotiations with French company EDF Energy.

The final bill for consumers was exacerbated by government not renegotiating the guaranteed power price for fear that EDF and its Chinese partner CGN would walk away from the project, which the MPs said was a questionable assumption.

Officials agreed a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour in 2013 but fossil fuel price projections fell between then and the contract being signed in 2016, pushing the cost to consumers up fivefold from £6bn to £30bn.

At the time the Department of Energy and Climate Change – now the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – did not consider a ceiling on the guaranteed price, the MPs were told.

Meg Hillier, chair of the group of MPs, said: “Billpayers have been dealt a bad hand by the government in its approach to this project.”

The criticism from the committee follows a damning report by the UK’s spending watchdog, the NAO, which found the contract for Hinkley had locked consumers into a “risky and expensive project”.

The NAO attacked the government for failing to explore alternative financing models, such as taking stake in the project, a criticism that the MPs echoed.

The public accounts committee said it was also disappointed that the government appeared to have no plan in place to maximise the wider benefits of the project, beyond the clean power it will provide.

“The department does not know to what extent UK workers and companies will benefit from Hinkley Point C and the wider follow-on new nuclear programme, and has no plan in place to show how it will maximise the wider benefits of the project,” the report said.

A BEIS spokeswoman said: “The government negotiated a competitive deal for the construction of the first new nuclear power station in a generation as part of our energy mix, which ensures consumers won’t pay a penny for any construction overruns and until the station generates electricity in 2025.”

The MPs urged the government to publish a plan B for keeping the lights on, in the event the power station does not come online in 2025 as planned. EDF has already warned that the plant could be completed 15 months late.

French, Japanese and Chinese developers hope to secure financial incentives from the UK to build other new nuclear power plants, but the MPs said the government should re-evaluate the strategic case before going ahead with more projects.

“The government made some grave strategic errors here and must now explain what it will do to ensure these are not repeated,” said Hillier of the Hinkley contract.

EDF defended the deal and said Hinkley would help cut costs for other future nuclear power stations, such as the one it hopes to build at Sizewell in Suffolk.

A spokesman said: “The agreed price is lower than 80% of other low carbon capacity contracted so far and the project has restarted UK nuclear construction after a quarter century. Construction is fully under way and is already delivering a huge benefit to British jobs, skills and industrial strategy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/22/hinkley-point-c-subsidy-consumers-mps-contract

Housing: too many loopholes, too many abuses

A Sidmouth resident writes:

“The Prime Minister has said it is her a personal mission to mend our broken housing market and provide much-needed “affordable” housing, even though much of this is, for many, unaffordable.

We hope therefore that she will immediately address loopholes in the planning system that are regularly exploited by developers who avoid making a fair contribution to affordable housing, for example by claiming, after they have obtained planning permission, that such housing is financially unviable.

Developers who build retirement flats often claim these are “care Homes”, even though they provide no care themselves. In Sidmouth, for instance, PegasusLife is currently appealing a decision to refuse a multi-million pound development of 113 expensive retirement flats and exploiting an ambiguity in planning law as well as using a viability test to avoid paying an estimated £3 million towards affordable housing, housing money that cash-strapped Councils can ill afford to lose.

It is a myth that the country needs more houses: it doesn’t need more expensive houses, investment properties and second homes. What it needs are low-cost houses, houses for social rent and houses to buy within the reach of lower and average income earners.

Will Mrs May tighten up planning law to stamp out such abuses or are we to conclude that the private sector, as hitherto, cannot be trusted to provide low-cost and “affordable” homes?”

The budget: well, at least Hammond will be ok

“… Hammond is one of Parliament’s richest MPs with a net worth estimated at £8.2million in 2014.

He made much of his money after setting up housing and nursing home developer Castlemead in 1984.

He still benefits from a trust that controls the firm, alongside his £143,000 salary for being a minister and MP.

But he refused point-blank to publish his tax return – leaving it difficult to estimate what he’s worth now. …”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/who-philip-hammond-what-net-11560679

“Flagship government housing plan fails to deliver a single home in three years”

Another one of those Tory “funds” (this one supposedly £2.3 billion) that achieved NOTHING.

Question: Where DID the money go?

“A flagship government programme to deliver 200,000 discounted new homes to first-time buyers is yet to see a single one built.

The 2014 Starter Home initiative was touted as part of “a major push” to help people on the housing ladder, but officials admit delivering any properties under the scheme remains an “ambition”.

It promised to achieve its target by pushing councils and developers to bring forward unused land and build on old industrial sites, measures that Chancellor Philip Hammond will again pledge to carry out as he makes housing a key plank of his Budget on Wednesday.

The Starter Home initiative’s lack of concrete progress also comes as Labour claimed Conservative spending plans since 2010 have stripped some £20bn out of UK housebuilding projects, robbing the country of an extra 280,000 homes.

It was just before Christmas three years ago that David Cameron announced the Starter Home project, promising to build 100,000 properties and offer them to young people at a 20 per cent discount.

At the Autumn Statement in 2015, then-Chancellor George Osborne said a £2.3bn fund would help boost the number to 200,000, “in addition to those delivered through reform of the planning system”.

None have been built despite officials in 2014 saying work would begin on the homes the following year.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/housing-starter-homes-budget-philip-hammond-a8066571.html

South West Ambulance service employees: open letter to public

An apology from Ambulance staff to our families, friends and the community:
Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes when you see an ambulance attending an incident what it might be like to work for the South Western Ambulance service?

Although we love what we do, behind the professional facade we portray to the public we are struggling to maintain a crumbling service deliberately being underfunded by the Government and made worse when those over pressured resources and stressed staff are then badly managed locally.

If you’re unfortunate enough to have to call us, please remember that although we will potentially often be the Deliverer of the First High Quality Care you receive in an accident or illness, we are not only not classified as an Emergency Service by the government but not appreciated or cared for by our employer.

We, as ambulance professionals, are trying to change that. Our Union, GMB, are trying to change that, but our employer and our Chief Executive are ignoring both our complaints and calls for change, so in order to explain to our families, friends and the public and even our employer SWAST we send out our heartfelt apologies:

TO THE PUBLIC:

We’re sorry for not getting to you or your loved ones quick enough because there are just not enough of us or we are called out to answer non-emergency calls.
We’re sorry for the patient and family members that have been left on the floor for hours as a consequence of not getting to you on time.
We’re sorry when you remain in the ambulance or in the hospital corridor for hours when we are stacked at A&E’s because we can’t complete our hand over.
We’re sorry that our employer is so poor in managing their resources that they are potentially putting your family at risk.
We’re sorry you sometimes feel the need to verbally abuse or physically threaten us while we treat your family and friends.
We’re sorry it appears that SWAST deployments and performance targets are more important than patient care.
We’re sorry if we arrive at your emergency at the end of a 12 hour shift and possible overrun if we are so tired we potentially fear making a wrong clinical decision.

TO OUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS:

We’re sorry for not being able to be there when you as family and friends need us.
We’re sorry for missing yet another family occasion.
We’re sorry we are refused annual leave when we want it meaning no family holiday once again.
We’re sorry yet another overrun has meant we are late home again.
We’re sorry kids that we couldn’t tuck you in and read you a story at bedtime.
We’re sorry for being so tired or stressed when we do finally get home.
We’re sorry for the occasions you’ll see us angry, frustrated, unhappy and sad.
We’re sorry when we witness yet another colleague’s relationship fail.
TO SWAST:
We’re sorry for feeling unsupported by you, our employer.
We’re sorry when we are stretched ever more thinly across a greater area of deployment that we don’t hit your targets for reaching critically ill patients in time.
We’re sorry for being sick in an environment and workplace that doesn’t allow it.
We’re sorry for what must be our annoying constant requests for annual leave and you having to take the time to respond and refuse them.
We’re sorry for our claims of PTSD.
We’re sorry for appearing ungrateful that your recent rota review has in fact destroyed our work life balance even more beyond acceptable limits.
We’re sorry for the inconvenience when injuries at work happen.
We’re sorry if we appear concerned that we will not reach retirement age as a result of physical or psychological injury.
We’re sorry for not agreeing with the Chief Executive, and his teams ‘my way or the highway’ attitude towards us as staff.

And finally in closing:

We’re sorry for saying sorry, time and time again to all of you because nothing ever changes.
We’re sorry for having to write this.
We’re sorry for asking, but it’s time for everyone to support our call for the Chief Executive to stand down.”

When is government funding not government funding?

… When you announce a fund of £1.7 billion and, in the same press release, announce that you have only agreed to spend £250 million!

“… The Transforming Cities fund aims to improve connectivity, reduce congestion and bring in new technology to create high-quality jobs and spread wealth around the country.

Some £250m has already been allocated to the West Midlands. …”

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-reveals-16317bn-transport-boost-ahead-of-budget-11135211

LEP take note: productivity is going to be measured very differently from now on

Our LEP has an open meeting on its “productivity strategy” tomorrow at 11 am at

Regency Suite, Devon Hotel
Exeter EX2 8XU

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/11/18/lep-needs-help-on-productivity-strategy-public-meeting-21-november-11am-exeter/

However, it may find itself in some difficulty as the way productivity is measured will change drastically next month when, instead of measuring productivity only in large firms, for the first time 600,000 businesses employing less than 100 people will be included. Our LEP has not based its strategy on these new measurements.

The Office for National Statistics is overhauling the way in which it measures the UK economy by including vast amounts of VAT data from small firms for the first time.

Previously, GDP estimates have been generated from a survey of the turnover at 45,000 companies – including all of the country’s largest businesses.

From December, information from a third of the UK’s 1.8m VAT returns will also be added to turnover data and included in official GDP figures.

This will dramatically change how the country’s economic growth is measured, providing far more insight into specific industries and locations. The greater proportion of VAT returns will also encompass more small companies, which make up 98pc of UK businesses.

For instance, in past GDP estimates, sectors such as restaurants and pubs were reported on, but only at a high level of “food and beverage service activities” based on 172 monthly surveys and 28,000 tax returns.

Having access to much more data will allow for a detailed view on the performance of pubs, takeaways and restaurants in different parts of the country, the ONS said.

For this first new estimate, only VAT returns from small and medium firms with headcounts of 100 or fewer will be included. Surveys of large firms will continue to be part of the ONS’s data gathering and reporting.

While smaller firms account for most of UK businesses, they only constitute 20pc of the economy. That means the data gathered and analysed by the ONS will be more detailed, but the impact on the GDP headline figure might not be altered by its inclusion, as larger company responses have greater sway.

Economist John Hawksworth of PwC said that it would be good if the ONS published “GDP estimates with and without use of the new VAT data”, so users could clearly see the difference made by its inclusion.

“It should also allow a more timely and detailed breakdown of economic activity by industry sub-sector and region to be produced than is possible at present,” Mr Hawksworth said.

Nick Vaughan, chief economist for the ONS, said the process of incorporating the additional data would be gradual.

“We are phasing these data in gradually and will ramp up the number of VAT returns we use over the coming years,” he said. He added that the new approach should lessen the administrative burden on small firms of completing surveys and help cut costs at the ONS.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/20/uk-use-small-firms-vat-returns-calculate-economic-growth/

Save Our Hospital Services (SOHS) ‘Care Closer to Home’ survey now online

The survey has been designed with input from a large number of people, including several healthcare professionals. Our aim is to gather as much data on the Care Closer to Home model as possible. We want to know how the model is working based on the real-life experiences of the people of Devon.

The survey can be completed as the patient or as the spouse/partner/relative/friend of the patient.”

https://surveys.sohs.org.uk

“One in seven councillors in English rental hotspots are landlords” – including Torbay

Freedom of Information request to EDDC anyone? To include councillors spouses and children, of course!

“In Torbay, 39% of councillors own multiple properties, including one who has received more than £63,000 in housing benefit payments for tenants in the last two years.

Three Conservative councillors in the south coast authority, including the mayor, own a combined 68 residential properties. In Bournemouth, 15 of the 37 councillors hold multiple property interests; in Labour-controlled Leeds, 26 of the 99 councillors own more than one property in the city.

Councils have the power to regulate private landlords with licensing schemes that enforce minimum levels of safety and habitability, particularly in the poorest areas with large numbers of rental homes. None of these three authorities, which have the largest proportions of landlord councillors, have introduced such schemes.

“It is worrying that towns and cities with high numbers of private renters are governed by a disproportionately high number of landlords, especially if it makes councils less inclined to regulate the local rental market properly,” said Dan Wilson Craw, director of the pressure group Generation Rent.

He said landlord licensing could make a significant difference. For example, the London borough of Newham’s licensing scheme accounts for 70% of all housing prosecutions in the capital.

Landlord councillors insist there is no conflict of interest and say a lack of resources and a belief that the schemes are not the most effective form of regulation influence the decisions. Others have said licensing is under consideration. …

… Torbay council has admitted that the age and quality of the housing stock “means that it is poorly insulated, generally inefficient, which leads to poor living conditions and fuel poverty”. It has also said it may consider licensing landlords in certain areas to increase control over the quality of private sector homes, but has yet to do so.

Six of its councillors rent out 19 properties in two of the most deprived wards. James O’Dwyer, who sits on several council committees, is also a property manager and landlord, and eight of the 44 houses and flats in which he and his family have an interest are located in two wards – Tormohun and Roundham with Hyde – that are ranked in the bottom 10% of living environments in England, according to the government’s indices of deprivation.

Since 2015, O’Dwyer has received more than £63,000 in housing benefit payments for his tenants, according to figures released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

O’Dwyer said budget cuts rather than the influence of councillor landlords was more likely to be the reason for the failure to introduce licensing schemes in his area.

“This lack of resources and the burden of bureaucracy is far more likely to be the cause of any stagnation of a licensing scheme than the Machiavellian cabal of landlords targeting Torbay,” he said.

O’Dwyer said he would support the right kind of scheme in Torbay and stressed that any conflicts of interest were dealt with under council rules.

His fellow councillor Ray Hill rents out five homes in Tormohun as part of a portfolio of 19 residential properties that he owns or leases. Hill said he and his wife were “responsible and attentive landlords”.

“All of the 19 flats owned by my wife and myself in Torquay and elsewhere are of a high standard, some furnished and some unfurnished,” he said.

A Torbay council spoke4sperson said the authority had invested in an enforcement team rather than licensing, which had resulted in prosecutions changing the behaviour of bad landlords.

“This has had an impact bay-wide rather than in a specific identified area,” they said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/20/one-in-seven-councillors-in-english-rental-hotspots-are-landlords

“Electoral Commission launches inquiry into leave campaign funding”

”Watchdog has ‘reasonable grounds to suspect offence was committed’ by Vote Leave, a student campaigner and another Eurosceptic group.

The watchdog will investigate whether Vote Leave, which was the officially designated Brexit campaign during the referendum, broke campaign finance rules.

Bob Posner, the commission’s director of political finance and regulation, said there were legitimate questions over the funding of campaigners which “risks causing harm to voters’ confidence in the referendum”.

The campaign, run by political strategist Matthew Elliott and former special adviser Dominic Cummings, will be investigated alongside Veterans for Britain and student activist Darren Grimes, now the deputy editor of the Brexit Central website, where Elliott is now editor-at-large.

The investigation has been opened after a review of previous assessments that the Electoral Commission conducted in February and March 2017, where it initially decided no further action was needed.

The commission said new information had since come to light which meant it had “reasonable grounds to suspect an offence may have been committed”.

Grimes and Veterans for Britain will be investigated as to whether he delivered an incorrect spending return in relation to a donation they received from Vote Leave and related campaign spending.

Vote Leave’s spending return will also be investigated, as well as whether the campaign breached its spending limit.

“There is significant public interest in being satisfied that the facts are known about Vote Leave’s spending on the campaign, particularly as it was a lead campaigner with a greater spending limit than any other campaigners on the ‘leave’ side,” Posner said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/20/electoral-commission-launches-inquiry-into-leave-campaign-funding

Housing: Hammond blames … well, it’s not clear

“… Hammond stated: “It is not acceptable to us [government] that so many fewer young Britons are able to own a home now than just 10 or 15 years ago. It is not acceptable to us that there are not enough properties to rent and that rents are sky high, and the answer is that we have to build more homes.” …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/11/hammond-pledges-action-housebuilding

Conservatives have been in control of housebuilding since 2010 – seven of those “10-15 years” Hammond talks about.

One of the first acts of the coalition was to put the major housebuilders in charge of re-writing planning policies. Their wishes became law in the National Planning Policy Framework – which people dubbed a “Developers’ Charter’ – and that continues to be the policy.

They also created “Help to Buy” for houses up to £600,000 – effectively handing subsidies to those same developers.

Sunday Telegraph: “Tory manifesto pledge on broadband not-spots at risk”

“A broadband upgrade for 1.4 million rural homes is expected to be delayed by as much as three years with talks on a deal between the Government and BT’s network subsidiary Openreach close to collapse. …

… the Government will be forced to impose new regulations to give broadband customers a right to an upgrade. It means the work is likely to take much longer and that a Tory manifesto pledge to deliver the minimum standard to everyone by 2020 is under threat. …”

Source: Sunday Telegraph

DCC, EDDC, Scrutiny, broadband and East Devon Alliance: not a good mix!

The Department for Communities and Local Government Parliamentary Committee asked for evidence on local authority scrutiny.

This interesting evidence was provided by BR4DS – a campaign group which is attempting to ensure that all parts of Devon and Somerset get fast broadband provision:

Written evidence submitted by B4RDS Broadband for Rural Devon and Somerset [OSG 006]

1. Executive summary:

1.1 At the first public meeting of a newly appointed Devon County Council (DCC) Scrutiny Committee in June 2017, the newly appointed Chairman delegated scrutiny of the Connecting Devon & Somerset (CDS) superfast broadband programme to an ongoing/standing task group of four Councillors who take evidence from Council Officers, suppliers and others in private, behind closed doors, with press and public excluded and with no formal minutes taken. This follows two years during which the previous committee required CDS to provide a quarterly written report on progress and answer questions in public, in front of the Committee.

The Terms of Reference for the ongoing/standing Task Group allow for it to continue in operation for seven years and the only information that will be put in the public domain will be reports by the four Councillors on their scrutiny of this subject. This is a major reduction in openness and transparency for the taxpayers of Devon and is contrary to the Council’s own constitution, the Nolan Principles and the expectations of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government as expressed at the 2017 Local Government Association Conference:

“If people are going to trust their elected representatives, they have to see them working in the harsh light of the public eye, not in comforting shadows behind closed doors. Not only must democracy exist; it must be seen to exist. It can’t be about decisions made in private meeting rooms.” – Rt Hon. Sajid Javid MP.”

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communities-and-local-government-committee/overview-and-scrutiny-in-local-government/written/70794.html

The East Devon Alliance also provided information to this committee which can be found here:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry6/publications/

Its executive summary states:

Written evidence submitted by East Devon Alliance [OSG 040]

Executive Summary

East Devon Alliance understands that encouraging economic development is a crucial task in local government. However, we are concerned that the increasing influence of unaccountable business interests on council decisions damages the health of local democracy, and can threaten the wider interests of local communities. The climate of unhealthy cynicism about politics, and a failure to engage in the democratic process, is reinforced whenever there is an apparent failure of scrutiny to make councils transparent and accountable.

Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) can too easily be rendered ineffectual by a dominant majority party in a cabinet-led-executive.

Government advice that members of a majority party should not chair O&S committees must be made mandatory.

Chief Executives must not be able to have inappropriate influence on O&S committees.

Scrutiny Officers need to be independent of influence and interference from senior officers or members of cabinet.

The scrutiny role needs to be strengthened to be able to call witnesses. It should be a legal requirement for officers and members of Council and associated bodies to cooperate.

With increasing privatisation, commercial confidentiality must not be used to shield public expenditure from scrutiny.

Scrutiny should “reflect the voice and concerns of the public” by giving local people more say in what issues are chosen for scrutiny.

There is no scrutiny mechanism of the new tier of local government created by the unelected and self-selecting Local Enterprise Partnerships who now control over £2 billion a year in England. Proposals made in 2013 by the Centre for Public Scrutiny could form the basis for scrutiny of such devolved bodies.”