“‘Secrecy’ over public spending exposed by Transparency International report”

“Secrecy and lack of information about UK public spending is so great that in more than a third of cases, the ordinary taxpayer can’t even know who has been awarded a Government or local authority contract, a new report has found.

Spending data was so heavily redacted, the campaign group Transparency International claimed, that in just one month a single London borough – Hackney – recorded £14 million of payments without revealing to the public who got the money.

Nationally, the Counting the Pennies report said that at least 35 per cent – more than a third – of published local and central government tender data did not even show who was awarded the contract.

Descriptions of what public authorities had purchased were, the report said, often so vague as to be “almost meaningless.”

And, it was reported, spending data was displayed in such a bewildering variety of different ways – “with 81,057 different column names used by public authorities to describe the money they have spent” – that the ordinary taxpayer trying to trace how their money was spent would be left baffled.

The result, said Duncan Hames, the director of Transparency International UK, was that people may be getting away with corruption in public office.

He said: “Open data is an essential tool in the fight against corruption. Real transparency significantly reduces hiding places for corrupt individuals and allows the public to hold the Government to account.

“There is a danger that although the Government are ticking the right boxes, the true spirit of transparency is being lost. The result is a missed opportunity to flush out questionable contacts and root out waste.”

The report analysed a total of £2.3 trillion of published transactions made by local and central government between 2011 and 2015. It concluded: “The UK has, in theory, one of the most open governments in the world, [but] the system is not working properly in practice.”

Despite Government guidelines calling for as much transparency as possible over public spending, the researchers found: “A significant amount of the transaction data that is being published appears to be redacted unnecessarily, in effect hiding the details of potentially substantial payments.”

In one London borough, which was unnamed in the report, £512 million of transactions – equivalent to 52 per cent of all transactions the council published – “were redacted so there was little information about the nature of these payments.”

The researchers put another London borough, Hackney, at the top of a ‘league table’ of public bodies ranked in terms of the highest value of transactions that were redacted in a single month.

In May 2015, the researchers claimed, Hackney recorded £14,050,025.66 spent in direct debits where the names of the suppliers paid by the council were redacted – leaving council tax payers unable to tell who had received £14 million of their money.

Difficulties in tracking how taxpayers’ money was spent, the report added, were compounded by the fact that in only 0.75 per cent of cases nationwide, (1 recorded transaction in 133), did the public body provide the unique Companies House identification number of the firm receiving its money.

Comments from Sussex University students asked to find out how councils and central government were spending taxpayers’ money by using the data they had published included: “If you’re a citizen you would simply give up.”

This was despite measures such as the UK Open Government National Action Plan, launched at the international Anti-Corruption Summit overseen by then Prime Minister David Cameron (at a time when he was under fire over his own family’s finances because of the Panama Papers leak.)

“These commitments are welcome,” the report concluded, “However it is now imperative that government works closely with civil society to make sure they are implemented in practice.”

Commenting on the £14 million spend where recipients of public money weren’t identified, a spokeswoman for Hackney Council said: “A large proportion of the figures listed were direct debit payments. We weren’t able to include the details of these payments in data collection at that time, but the value of the payments were included so that we could offer as much information as possible.

“Since April 2016, following improvements to our banking system, we have been able to provide the full details.”

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “”This Government is determined to deliver on its commitment to continue to be the most transparent government in the world and we continue to build on this.

“We are the first G7 country to have committed to the Open Contracting Data Standard on our central purchasing authority and we are now improving the quality and transparency of government grants.

“We are also improving the Freedom of Information Act, making more data available across the public sector, and will continue to make government more open.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secrecy-over-public-spending-exposed-taxpayers-money-government-corruption-where-is-taxpayers-money-a7327186.html

Conservative whip chooses councillors for Port Royal project

“During Wednesday’s meeting the cabinet agreed two Sidmouth councillors – Cllr John Dyson and
Cllr David Barratt – would represent EDDC on the group.

Councillor Phil Twiss said: “We must not forget Sidmouth is more than just a town, we have Sidford, Sidbury and Sidford rural – they will be excluded if it is just seen as an EDDC town ward councilproject.

“We want to include as many people as we can, in every way we can – we weren’t perfect in Exmouth and we have all learnt lessons from that – we have to be more open and inclusive.

“This has gone on for far too long, it seems like it has been 40 or 50 years … It is a part of the
town that is let down badly. We need to help Sidmouth Town Council go ahead with this.”

Cllr Twiss proposed they had one town council ward member on the group – Cllr John Dyson along with Cllr David Barratt, so they could have a more wider and open representation.

Cllr Dawn Manley said: “I have every faith in Cllr Barratt and Cllr Dyson but I find it extraordinary [that] the Conservative whip has chosen who they want to go forward. It makes no sense to me that the town councillors, who were voted for because of these specific issues are being
sidelined.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/cathy-gardner/20160925/cabinet-stitch-up-port-royal-representation/

Owl says: Councillor Twiss ALWAYS says he does not whip despite holding the post which would be redundant if he did not!

Now he can prove it by allowing Sidmouth councillors to choose their reps!

EDDC parking meter overpayments

According to the response below “What is this excess revenue spent on? – This income is not separated from the total income received from car parking, which is used to fund the service itself and helps to fund a range of services provided by the Council.”

Er, what range of services? Income from parking is meant to be spent only on parking related projects and creaming-off the overpayments for “other services provided by the council” is very questionable to say the least and possibly illegal, though Owl will bow to the expertise of EDDC’s legal eagles on that point – and fortunately we do gave an expert councillor too – Chairman Hughes.

Let’s hope they follow correct procedure for using surplus funds, which is:

Safer Parking:
In deciding how to spend their parking surplus, local authorities should have regard for the advice given in the Local Government Association’s Circular 535/00. This circular urges authorities to work towards Safer Parking Accreditation (Park Mark®), and to consider using parking surpluses to fund the necessary measures.

The circular refers to section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and argues that this Act together with the provisions of section 55 of the 1984 Act makes it both necessary and desirable for authorities to prioritise spending on crime prevention measures in car parks before consideration is given to spending parking surpluses in other areas.”

Click to access PPN1%20-%20Charging%20for%20Parking%20-%20Aug%202011.pdf

Here is the Freedom of Information request:

“Date submitted: 15 September 2016

Summary of request

• Over the past five financial years how much money has the council made through parking-overpayments from its meters i.e. “over-vend” in parking meters that do not give out change?
• What is this excess revenue spent on?
• How many of these parking meters do the council manage?
• Over the past five financial years how much money has the council made in total through car parking meters?
Summary of response

• Over the past five financial years how much money has the council made through parking-overpayments from its meters i.e. “over-vend” in parking meters that do not give out change? – There were no overpayments in the financial years up to and including 2013/14 as our machines were programmed then to give the appropriate time for the money inserted into ticket machines. Because we wanted to add more choice to the customer, from the 1st April 2014 we introduced 2, 3 and 4 day permits. This meant that the memory available in the current ticket machines did not allow for the previous increments and so we introduced 50p increments without the option to give change.

2014/15 – £16,946 Gross inc VAT ( NET £14,122); 2015/16 – £15,066 Gross inc VAT (NET £12,555)

• What is this excess revenue spent on? – This income is not separated from the total income received from car parking, which is used to fund the service itself and helps to fund a range of services provided by the Council.

• How many of these parking meters do the council manage? – Currently we have 61 ticket machines.

• Over the past five financial years how much money has the council made in total through car parking meters? – The figures below are the NET income (which is how we report in the accounts/budgets etc) for the respective years just for the ticket machine income and Parkmobile charges.

2011/12 – £2,401,376
2012/13 – £2,244,874
2013/14 – £2,346,703
2014/15 – £2,477,864
2015/16 – £2,554,583

Date responded: 23 September 2016

show details
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

“Inclusive Devolution”

Here are the main points of the RSA publication referred to in the previous post:

A new policy framework to promote inclusive growth

The report proposes a policy framework based on the following elements:

Integrating economic and social policy — we argue for a model which combines economic and social policy to generate inclusive growth. That means integrating people-focused policies on skills, family support and education with economic development strategies linked to investment and industry policy.

Devolution that is social as well as economic — up until now, devolution to cities has mostly related to strategic economic functions. The next phase of devolution needs to have a much stronger social policy focus so that public service reform can support local growth.

More funding to support inclusive growth at local level — the context for devolution so far has been fiscal neutrality and austerity. The establishment of investment funds and the transfer of economic functions has been good for cities, but at the same time their overall revenue budgets have shrunk substantially. The next phase of what we call ‘grown up devolution’ will need to provide more funding for social and capital projects.

Prioritising prevention and early intervention — it is widely accepted that we spend too much on picking up the pieces of social and economic failure. Now is the time to begin the process of shifting the balance of spending towards prevention and early intervention, so that public services can support inclusive growth, rather than respond to the lack of it.

View at Medium.com

Devolution “myths” not myths at all, says Devon County Councillor

From the Facebook page of Lib Dem Councillor for Totnes, Robert Vint:

“On Monday Devon County Councillors were presented with a “Myth Busting” training session on Devolution. On Thursday there was a repeat session for South Hams District Councillors.

The “Myths” they were attempting to “bust” were that the Devolution process was led by the LEP, was undemocratic, would result in local government reorganisation / centralisation etc.

The explanations – or non-explanations – only strengthened my concerns. It was confirmed that there would be no public consultation on the economic development plan but only on the Combined Authority proposal and that the LEP had played a central role.

I asked why the plan did not start by identifying local needs such as rural unemployment and affordable housing then consult communities and small businesses on how to tackle these problems. They said not to worry as this was an outline economic plan – but later they confirmed that there would be no consultation on the economic plan or any opportunity to change it.

We have a Devolution Prospectus written by the few big businesses in the LEP to serve their own needs rather than those of the wider community of Devon and Somerset. This has then been rubberstamped by local authorities who did not have the staff, time or vision to rewrite it to meet our real needs and who failed to consult residents and small and family businesses. As a result we will be subjected, without any opportunity to comment, to a local economic development strategy that will serve the wealthy rather than the majority and that will fail to provide jobs where they’re needed or houses to the people who need them most.

In contrast the RSA – Royal Society of Arts – outlines how we should be delivering genuine, fair and inclusive devolution (see below).

The UK’s economic status-quo has resulted in huge sections of our population being ‘left behind’. So the RSA are proposing a radical programme of devolution, inclusive industrial strategies and investment in human capital to create a more inclusive, equal society.

https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-blogs/2016/09/inclusive-growth-proposals

Review of how regeneration boards operate

Residents will be pleased to hear that the Overview Committee at EDDC is considering a review how regeneration boards operate.

They will probably not be pleased to hear that no date has been set for the review.

Click to access 270916-overview-agenda-combined.pdf

(page 26)

Honiton to lose all its hospital beds?

From the blog of Claire Wright, Independent councillor at Devon County Council and member of its Health Services committee.

Okehampton and Honiton Hospitals are set to lose all in-patient beds in a cost cutting exercise by local health services.

72 beds are to be cut from 143 in all, with four options that will be consulted on, although health bosses have a preferred option of keeping beds at Tiverton, Seaton and Exmouth.

Other hospitals at risk of losing all their inpatient beds are: Sidmouth and Whipton Hospital in Exeter

Health chiefs hope that the bed cuts will save £5-6m a year, with around 20 to 40 per cent of current running costs reinvested in creating health hubs and providing more care in people’s homes.

Some councillors had a briefing this afternoon from the chief executive of the “success regime” which has been drafted in by government to make significant cuts to counteract a deficit of around £430m by 2020.

We should remember that this area of Devon has already lost all inpatient beds at Ottery St Mary, Axminster, Crediton and Budleigh Salterton.

Discharging people from the RD&E in Exeter has never been more difficult.

Not only is there a funding crisis in the local NHS, there is also a funding crisis in social care locally, which is one of the reasons why people are unable to be discharged in a sensible length of time. This budget is hugely overspent at Devon County Council.

The consultation on the bed cuts is set to start on 7 October, with a decision made next February by the Northern, Eastern and Western Devon CCG (NEW Devon CCG). If agreed proposals will be implemented in March.

For my views on hospital bed losses see – http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/health_scrutiny_committee_to_ask_to_health_select_committee_to_investigate

I was interviewed by BBC Spotlight about the cuts. Here’s how they reported the issue this evening, at 3 mins 43 – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07v2gpz/spotlight-evening-news-21092016

For more detail see http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/where-will-72-community-hospital-beds-be-lost-in-devon/story-29738533-detail/story.html#R9PAwLxGj62bsWFV.99

“Election officers urge “root and branch” review of electoral system”

We know all about election problems in East Devon! Indeed our Returning Officer and CEO Mark Williams was called to Parliament to explain our omnishambles when 6,000 voters disappeared from the electoral roll in the year before general and local elections.

And an interesting point made on the declarations of electoral administration expenses.

“Election officers were “pushed to the absolute limit” by this year’s glut of polls, the Association of Electoral Administrators has said in a report.

This covered the period of local elections last May and the referendum on European Union membership in June, both conducted on new registers under the individual electoral registration system.

The report said election administrators would recall 2016 “as the year that the system came closer to collapse than ever before”.

The combination of May and June polls left administrators “stretched beyond belief” as they struggled to run multiple local polls and the referendum back to back, the AEA said.

This was complicated by the 48-hour extension to the registration deadline for the referendum.

The AEA warned that the system would be unable to cope with further burdens unless it were reformed.

Chief executive John Turner said: “What is required is a root and branch review of the whole arrangements for registration and the conduct of elections rather than more adjustment and change to a system so deeply rooted in the 19th century.

“Many of the problems that currently exist and which surfaced again at this year’s elections are because of the historic nature of the systems in place and which are increasingly becoming unfit for purpose.”

The AEA said the Government should implement the Law Commission’s
recommendations for a single Electoral Administration Act setting out the high-level framework governing electoral registration, elections and referendums in the UK, with the operational detail of registration, absent voting, and elections contained in secondary legislation.

It should also publish an assessment of the risks associated with any proposed changes to legislation before making any changes.

The Cabinet Office should ensure that administration expenses claims submitted are audited and settled within the same financial year, the AEA said.

It also called for staff to be exempt from auto-enrolment for pensions when they were working on elections and referendums, as opposed to their normal duties, to avoid creating a liability for election administrators.

The AEA sounded the alarm over the multiple polls due on 7 May 2020, when a UK Parliamentary general election, police and crime commissioner elections and those for numerous local authorities and elected mayors are due to coincide. It called on the Government to consider changing the date of some of the polls involved.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28433%3Aelection-officers-urge-root-and-branch-review-of-electoral-system&catid=59&Itemid=27

“We need to talk about Devon”

Emeritus Martin Shaw joined Sussex as Professor of International Relations and Politics in 1995, and became Research Professor in 2008. He was head of department at Sussex from 1996-99. After graduating from the London School of Economics in Sociology, he held lecturerships in Sociology at Durham and Hull (from which he gained his PhD) and was Professor of Political and International Sociology at Hull. He currently holds a Professorial Fellowship at Roehampton University, London, and is a Visiting Professor at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacional.

Professor Shaw is currently a town councillor in Seaton, Devon.

“The Conservative hold on power in Britain is stronger than might be implied by its slim 17-seat majority in the 650-seat House of Commons. Labour, the only other party with a hope of forming an electoral majority, would need to gain around 100 seats even before the impact of the newly announced boundary changes is taken into account. Alternatively, it could settle for a coalition, and forge an agreement with the Scottish National Party; but this looks no more possible now than in 2015. As the Labour leadership contest draws to a close, the party’s road to power, whoever wins, is extremely difficult to forsee.

The Tory elective dictatorship rests on an almost complete dominance in southern England (outside large cities and university towns), which was also the principal area of support for Brexit. In the 2015 general election, the Tories’ targeted wipeout of the Liberal Democrats across the South West delivered their unexpected majority. South and west of Bristol there is only one non-Tory MP (Labour’s Ben Bradshaw in Exeter). Even more than in the much-discussed case of Scotland under the SNP, the South West has become a virtual one-party state.

Some outside the region have speculated that a Liberal Democrat recovery might help enable a ‘progressive alliance’ to form as an alternative to Theresa May’s Tories. However, a recovery to pre-2015 levels would not only be insufficient to offset Labour’s deficits in Scotland as elsewhere, it also ignores the extent to which the Tories have concentrated power to make it difficult for any opposition party to change the regional balance.The situation in the region’s largest county, Devon, shows the depth of the problem. But at the same time, it is where local activists are devising new ways of doing politics that are challenging Tory control.

A microcosm of Tory power
The Tory monopoly in Devon is even more complete than in neighbouring Cornwall and Somerset. Conservatives have overwhelming control of local government (both unitary authorities, the County Council and almost all the districts). In the urban areas, the general election results were close, and opposition parties remain in contention. Labour has strong representation in Plymouth, as well as Exeter where they recently consolidated their control of the City Council, and the Lib Dems enjoy considerable support in Torbay. But in the rural areas and small towns, the majority of the county, Tory dominance is almost absolute at every level – barring some town and parish councils where politics is less partisan.

Some rural areas have never had a non-Tory MP. The Tories had six of the seven non-urban Devon seats even in 2010. At least one council, East Devon, has been Tory since it was created in 1973. In semi-rural Devon, even an unlikely Lib Dem revival would make little difference. How then can things ever change?

Minority rule
It is important to understand that Conservative rule is based neither on majority support or extensive party membership. In 2015, the party gained under 45 per cent of all votes. Even in the seven non-urban seats, the 2015 increase in Tory support brought them only up to a 49 per cent average; in the urban seats they squeaked in on the same 37 per cent that gave them their national majority. Yet the non-Conservative majority are virtually unrepresented.

The Tory party is hollowed out and probably has far fewer members than Labour. The party could only take Torbay and North Devon from the Lib Dems with the aid of the notorious ‘battle bus’ activists, whose costs their Torbay agent, Alison Hernandez – like many others – failed to declare. Even after Channel 4 broke the scandal in 2016, Hernandez was narrowly elected as Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner, but refused to stand aside as she was investigated (the case was transferred to another force and is still pending).

As ever where one-party rule is so entrenched, corruption is not far away. Revelations like those in 2013, when East Devon Tory councillor Graham Brown was forced to resign after telling a journalist he could obtain planning permission in return for cash, fuel widespread cynicism about local power which make the ruling party vulnerable.The flexibility of local Tory MPs over Brexit is likely to create a new constituency for opposition; ‘pro-Remain’ Neil Parish MP, Chair of the parliamentary Environment committee, quickly backed Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom in quick succession for the leadership and now describes Brexit as a ‘glorious opportunity’.

Failure of the opposition parties
That non-Tory votes largely fail to make an impact is partly the repsonsibility of previous Labour and Lib Dem politicians. They have repeatedly failed to reform the electoral system, both at the national and local level. Tony Blair’s government never held the referendum on Proportional Representation to which its 1997 manifesto committed it. Current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has never campaigned for PR during his 33 years in Parliament, and together with his rival Owen Smith continues to fudge the issue in recent responses to the Electoral Reform Society.

Nick Clegg abandoned the Lib Dems’ longstanding committment to proportional representation to obtain office in 2010, settling for the promise of a referendum on the weaker ‘alternative vote’ system without even securing government support for change. In the South West, the Lib Dems’ collective political suicide through the Coalition has broken the residual credibility of the first-past-the-post system.

Failing services
Because Tory dominance is so extensive, the party has largely taken voters for granted. Devon is suffering sharply from the general underfunding, balkanisation and creeping part-privatisation of public services. The NHS trust running the flagship Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital has been forced from a healthy surplus into deep deficit. The NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, also in chronic deficit, tried to bar some patients from routine operations until obliged by public pressure to abandon its plans. Local Community Hospitals have lost beds and have been handed over to NHS Property Services, which can put up rents or, worse, sell off the sites.

Devon is a region of heavy immigration, mainly of retirees from other English regions (although with some international migrants, concentrated in its cities). As in the NHS, the gap between funding and need threatens adult social care. Child protection services are deemed inadequate. Since Tory Devon retains grammar schools, there are concerns about the effects of Theresa May’s proposed expansion of these schools on the excluded majority of children.

Phoney devolution
The unaccountability of Devon Tories is also evident in how they have embraced the half-baked, patchwork ‘devolution’ launched by George Osborne, which offers limited ‘additional’ money – while core government funding for local services is pared down or eliminated. Although Devon is a much larger and more populous county than neighbouring Cornwall which has a sole devolution deal, Devon is being forced into a merger with Somerset in a new brand, an affront to local identities, ‘Heart of the South West’.

The principal rationale for the linkage seems to be to create a larger base for the anachronistic and hyper-expensive Hinckley C nuclear project. Any benefits, if they materialise, will be overwhelmingly for the neighbouring county. The proposed devolution, with a hyper-aspirational prospectus which bears comparison to Vote Leave’s notorious offer, is being run through the Local Economic Partnership, dominated by unelected business leaders.

The county election challenge
Devon County Council comes up for reelection in May 2017. In 2013, the Tories won 38 of the 62 seats on a mere 35 per cent of the vote. Under first past the post, the divided Lib Dems, Labour, Greens and Independents between them won only 20 seats for 41 per cent of the vote. (UKIP, which polled 23 per cent, won 4 seats.) It is obvious that none of the three centre and left opposition parties can win a majority in 2017. The Lib Dems may keep some strongholds, but they are still picking themselves up from their 2015 battering, and elsewhere local activists are thin on the ground.

Despite a deep conflict between Bradshaw and pro-Corbyn Momentum activists, Labour will probably keep its Exeter seats, but is unlikely to win in the rural areas and small towns. Rural Labour parties have seen the Corbyn surge in membership but with modest benefits for local activism: a constituency party which has trebled its membership to 500 may still only get about 15 people to its meetings. Members vote for their preferred leader, but have too little scope to change things locally. Even if it advances, Labour is starting from a very low base, and the Greens are smaller.

New politics?
The 2015 elections saw important steps forward for a different kind of politics in semi-rural East Devon. From a standing start, Independent candidate Claire Wright leapfrogged UKIP, Labour and the Lib Dems to take second place in the East Devon parliamentary constituency of Hugo Swire, a ‘Cameron croney’ since knighted in his resignation honours. It was the only Independent second place anywhere in England, after a grassroots campaign typically ignored by the national press.

In parallel, the East Devon Alliance, formed in 2013 out of revulsion at the Brown case and East Devon’s pro-developer bias, put up over 30 district council candidates and succeeded, despite the simultaneous Tory general election victory, in taking ten seats from the Tories (this writer was an unsuccessful candidate). Independents led by EDA replaced the Lib Dems as the official opposition.

An investigative blog, East Devon Watch, has played an important informational role in the new politics, now matched by a South Devon Watch site. An Independent group successfully challenged for control of Buckfastleigh Town Council, in the Teinbridge district, at the same time as the better-known ‘flatpack democracy’ of Frome in Somerset. A loose Independent network is emerging across the South West, including Cornwall.

Although social media played an important part in these campaigns, many relied heavily on old-fashioned doorstep campaigning. A new campaign to influence the County Council elections, Devon United, is perhaps the first – certainly the most ambitious – initiative to be actually launched through social media. Its first meeting in October will be addressed by Paul Hilder, co-founder of OpenDemocracy.net and CrowdPac and former global campaigns director for Avaaz and Change.org.

I have written recently about the limitations of the national progressive crowdsourcing campaign organisation, 38 Degrees, during and after the Brexit vote. It remains to be seen what happens when crowdsourced politics meets local electioneering, and how the division of the anti-Tory vote will be overcome. But this initiative shows that the new politics is alive and kicking in a county where the old politics has so manifestly failed.”

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/martin-shaw/we-need-to-talk-about-devon

(At least) 600 hospital beds to go in Devon – 72 of them in East Devon

Hospital being pitted against hospital (e.g. Sidmouthor Seaton to close)

“… the body which runs health services in most of Devon said that it was now looking at proposals to cut 72 beds in community hospitals in the east of the county.

The four options under consultation are…

A) 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Seaton and 16 beds in Exmouth.

B) 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Sidmouth and 16 beds in Exmouth.

C) 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Seaton and 16 beds in Whipton.

D) 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 in Sidmouth and 16 beds in Whipton.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/600-hospital-beds-to-be-axed-in-devon/story-29739152-detail/story.html

To repeat: the NHS is NOT overspent, it is underfunded

The myth of local health consultations and “choices”

Our local health services are NOT overspent, they are underfunded.

We are NOT having to make “difficult choices” – we are being told what has been decided for us behind closed doors about the consequences of that underfunding.

“Public consultation” is far too little far too late. The decisions were made long ago about which services will suffer and we cannot reverse those decisions without a MASSIVE revolt against them, and even then concessions will be zero or minimal.

That is the reality.

If we want to change that most of us will have to vote out the people who brought us to this. Unpalatable for some, but the only course available to us.

Chief Constables want complaints against them kept secret

“Britain’s most senior police officers are demanding that official complaints about their conduct and behaviour be kept secret.
The Chief Constables’ Council recently discussed moves that could be made to stop the public finding out about investigations into alleged corruption and misconduct. …

… David Burrowes, a lawyer and MP on the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: ‘There are many people like doctors and politicians who are named when allegations are made against them, so I don’t think police officers should have a special rule. It’s very important that law enforcers aren’t treated differently.’ …

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3794690/Keep-complaints-against-secret-say-Britain-s-police-chiefs.html

And what stance will our Police and Crime Commissioner, also under investigation herself, take about this one? Agree, so that future PCCs could be included in anonymity? Or prefer the disinfectant of sunlight?

And what about representatives on Police Panels? Hide away the dirty linen or wash it for all to see?

“Hinkley: where Tories’ private bank balances are going nuclear”

“On 15 September, Prime Minister Theresa May officially gave the go-ahead for the controversial Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. After May put the project under review in July, there were rumours that it might be cancelled. But today’s sudden announcement appears to have cemented the deal.

But the move should come as little surprise. Because when you look at who is behind it, and who benefits from it, it appears that the Tories (once again) have their snouts firmly in the trough.

An eye-watering white elephant

The £18bn new plant in Hinkley, Somerset is being built by French energy company EDF, and financed by both them and the Chinese government. The latter agreed to the financing, in return for approval of a Chinese-led and designed project at Bradwell in Essex. But there are concerns about escalating costs and the implications of nuclear power plants being built in the UK by foreign governments.

The deal been slammed by both Labour and environmental campaigners. Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, meanwhile, has called Hinkley “the biggest white elephant in British history”. She said that it was absurd and disappointing that the deal was to proceed when the government is reducing support for cheaper, safer and more reliable renewable alternatives:

Instead of investing in this eye-wateringly expensive white elephant, the government should be doing all it can to support offshore wind, energy efficiency and innovative new technologies, such as energy storage.
But a quietly released report by Greenpeace shows that the deal was probably always going to go ahead.

EDF: in bed with the government

Analysis done by Greenpeace found that ten advisers and civil servants who worked at the former Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in the last five years had links to EDF. One was recently employed by the DECC and was also a manager at the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the regulator for the nuclear industry. This was before they became a licensing officer for EDF.

An EDF Strategy Manager had a 13-month secondment to the DECC commercial team while working for auditors KPMG. As Greenpeace notes, the DECC commercial team “played a crucial role in deciding to press ahead with the Hinkley project”. It was this team which had oversight on who invested in Hinkley Point C. Additionally, a communications officer for EDF was previously the Senior Ministerial Visits Manager at DECC until early 2016. And a policy adviser and analyst for the now-defunct department had previously done the same job at EDF.

This is on top of the fact that former Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, now works as a lobbyist for MHP Communications – where EDF just happens to be a client. As Martin Williams describes in his book Parliament Ltd: A journey to the dark heart of British politics:

When he lost his seat in 2015, he [Davey] went off to join MHP Communications. He had connections with the firm already: MHP acted as lobbyists for EDF Energy, who Davey “had dealings with as a minister”… When MHP’s Chief Executive announced Davey’s appointment he was able to speak candidly about the benefits of employing a former energy minister. “Ed’s unique insight into the energy sector will be particularly valuable to the companies that we work with in that sector. His knowledge of the top-level workings of Britain’s political system will also prove immensely useful to a range of our clients and to MHP itself”.

It was Davey who was responsible for the initial agreement between the government and EDF. But the links to EDF Energy and the Tory government run deeper than the Greenpeace analysis. And go right to the top of the Conservative Party.

Tories: in bed with EDF

Sir Richard Lambert heads EDF’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel. It gives EDF “strategic advice and direction”. Knighted under David Cameron, he’s a non-executive director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, acting as lead advisor to the Foreign Secretary. He was in this role under Philip Hammond, who appears to have been crucial in getting the Hinkley deal pushed through. Lambert said of the Hinkley deal:

The Stakeholder Panel will be taking a particular interest in the final investment decision on Hinkley Point C.

Also advising EDF is Dame Helen Alexander. She is a non-executive director at Rolls-Royce, which has £100m worth of contracts at Hinkley, Alexander is also the Deputy Chair of the “women on boards” review. She was appointed by Sajid Javid in February 2016.”

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/09/15/hinkley-tories-private-bank-balances-going-nuclear/

Devolution and scrutiny

It is no coincidence that George Osborne, whose current Cheshire parliamentary seat will be lost in boundary changes and who wishes to remain an MP, has created a ‘Northern Powerhouse Partnership’ think tank and put himself in charge of it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37380653

If Owl lived in the area it would be VERY afraid!

“The proposed reduction in the number of MPs in the House of Commons will affect how government is held to account and how Whitehall’s devolution schemes are scrutinised.

The publication of the Boundary Commission for England’s plans for new parliamentary boundary has received heavy press coverage. Inevitably a lot of this has focused on the fate of some high profile MPs, and the possibility of increasing the country’s democratic deficit through the reduction of the number of parliamentarians in the House of Commons from 650 to 600.

However, some of this coverage is speculative in nature. We won’t know until 2018 the details of the boundaries on which constituencies will be fought in the 2020 election. And we don’t really know what the effect will be on politics both national and local.

What we do know is that it will create uncertainty in Westminster – and is likely to have an impact on the devolution agenda, too.

It’s early days but here are what I think could be some of the likely outcomes.

• MPs may find themselves distracted from their parliamentary activities. For some this will be because they are having to deal with reselection battles; for others it will be because they are having to prepare to campaign in a new constituency without the benefit of incumbency. This probably won’t affect the government’s legislative programme but it may affect scrutiny in select committees and the quality of scrutiny in Public Bill Committees, as MPs direct their time to the more pressing business of reselection and re-election. For progress on devolution, it could mean that the progress of deals – and a continued focus on pursuit of the devolution policy in the heart of government – is not held to account as effectively by MPs;

• Some MPs – those who fail to be reselected and/or those who choose not to stand again – may start to be more independent-minded. This may serve, in contrast to the point above, to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, and place government under pressure to do more to pas power down to local levels;

• In areas where prominent MPs have been a driving force in pushing forward devolution, the possible disappearance of those people from the current political scene may cause uncertainty and difficulties both for local areas and for government.

For local areas, this will bring additional uncertainty. Between now and 2018 comes a period during which local authorities can attempt to capitalise on what they have achieved so far, and can use existing channels to try to achieve more. Local areas will need to press on with more, and more ambitious, deals while the opportunity exists.

The pace of this exercise reflects the fact that between 2018 and 2020, boundary changes will lead to the reorganisation of political parties at a local level and the ramping up of the 2020 general election, not to mention the need to direct resources (parliamentary and otherwise) to the Brexit negotiations, which will presumably by then be in full swing.

The next two years, therefore, are crucial in embedding some results for local areas that are as positive as possible, and arguing successfully for more powers. This will be important if devolution is to maintain momentum over the 2018-20 period, which is likely to be more politically febrile.

Effective member-led scrutiny at local level can help to play a part in this. Local councillors, through scrutiny, can keep up pressure to continue to argue for strong deals which will make a difference for local people; they can help to demonstrate and promote an appetite within the local area for more powers. They can also help to draw together the evidence to support new proposals to government. Even where combined authorities have been set up and the election of Mayors is on the horizon, good scrutiny can still – in the next two years – help to get that message across both to government and to local people. Beyond 2018 at the latest, all bets are off – the prospect of boundary changes and Brexit will make Westminster a strange and unpredictable place, and government’s (and parliamentarians’) interests are likely to have moved elsewhere.”

Ed Hammond is the head of programmes (Local Accountability) at the Centre for Public Scrutiny

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/what-parliamentary-boundary-changes-mean-scrutiny

“Devon’s ‘devastating’ hospital cuts to be scrutinised”

We await Hugo Swire and Neil Parish’s plans on how to deal with devastating health and social services cuts in Devon. In the meantime, DCC councillor Claire Wright continues her long and tireless campaign on behalf of East Devon residents.

“Plans to cut nearly 200 community hospital beds across Devon by 2020/21 will come under the scrutiny of county council health bosses on Monday (September 19).

Councillor Claire Wright (pictured) described the proposals in a leaked document as ‘devastating’ and said the underfunding of the NHS should not mean that patients suffer.

More than 400 acute hospital beds in the county – one in six – could close, as the NHS in Devon looks to plug a predicted funding gap of £572million by 2020/21.

The leaked Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for Wider Devon states: “The changes we are proposing will result in a reduction in the number of acute and community beds across our system of the order of 590 by 2021.

“NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) are developing consultation proposals on the overall strategic direction of travel and provision changes, the components of new models of care and specific intentions to close a number of community hospital beds.”

NHS bosses were approached for comment, but would not specify how the cuts would affect different localities.

Cllr Wright said: “My understanding is that the document was submitted to NHS England for its consideration in June.

“That’s three months ago – why on earth it has been kept so secret from residents, and councillors including those like me on the health and wellbeing scrutiny committee?

“As an Ottery St Mary councillor, I am very worried indeed now for Ottery Hospital’s future – and the impact that so many acute and community bed closures in general will have on patient care all over the county.

“The fact that the NHS is massively underfunded should not mean that patients have to suffer.”

A statement issued by NEW Devon CCG says more analysis and consideration was to be undertaken before a further submission is made in October.

It said: “The STP creates the opportunity for health and local authorities to work together and formulate plans to improve and secure the sustainability of services we deliver to people across Devon.

“The programme of work to review acute and specialised service across Devon will commence in October.”

A report on the STP will be given to Devon County Council’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee on Monday.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/devon_s_devastating_hospital_cuts_to_be_scrutinised_1_4698027

When planning goes (very) wrong

“The Local Government Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, has strongly criticised a city council for failing to comply with her recommendations in a planning case, and issued a reminder to local authorities that she has the same powers as the High Court to require evidence.

The LGO’s comments came after an investigation into complaints from two separate homeowners about errors by planners at Plymouth City Council when approving a second application on an uncultivated field.

The Ombudsman concluded that “during the planning process, officers failed to publicise the new application properly in the neighbourhood, failed to ask for a flood risk assessment from the Environment Agency, included the wrong plans in the report to the planning committee, and significantly misrepresented how the new proposals would affect neighbours in the report”.

One resident/complainant said she no longer had late afternoon sunshine in her kitchen, sitting room and dining room and had a Juliet balcony overlooking her garden. Decking in the new garden afforded an uninterrupted view into her bedroom, she said.

The other couple/complainants felt that they are overlooked and their outlook is dominated by a two-storey house.

Both sets of complainants also said that their properties flood because of inadequate consideration of drainage of surface water from the site.

The LGO claimed that Plymouth had been obstructive and had her findings of fault.

“It has had a number of opportunities to acknowledge the errors made but has refused to do so or to follow recommendations made.”

The Ombudsman recommended that to remedy the injustice the council should:

apologise to both families;
ask the District Valuer to assess the current value of the complainants’ properties and the value each would have had if the developers had built according to the original plans and pay the difference between the two valuations;
pursue the proposals in the drainage report completed in the course of the investigation and ensure adequate drainage is in place before the onset of winter;
arrange for all members of its planning committee to have at least one day’s training from professionally qualified planning officers who are not employed by the council to ensure they can robustly challenge planning officers’ views prior to making decisions;
pay both families £500 each in recognition of the time and trouble to which they have been put.

Dr Martin said: “The role of the Local Government Ombudsman to hold councils to account when they get things wrong is well established and has a statutory basis.

“Authorities can and do have the chance to comment on my decisions before they are finalised, including providing evidence if they wish to challenge the findings, but they should cooperate with the investigation process. Compliance with LGO recommendations is extremely high, based on a relationship with local authorities of mutual trust and respect. This is essential for achieving redress for citizens.

“I would now urge Plymouth council to learn from my report and accept the recommendations for remedy I have made.”

Leader of Plymouth City Council, Cllr Ian Bowyer, said: “This investigation has taken nearly three years to conclude and we understand this process has been difficult for the complainants so we are pleased that the Ombudsman has finally reached a decision.

“The council takes this matter very seriously and has been working with the Ombudsman over the last three years to address procedural matters that have led to changes in the way Plymouth City Council considers issues raised in planning applications of this nature.

“The council has already apologised to the complainants and provided financial compensation where it accepts it is at fault. However, there are still matters that the council does not agree with in the Ombudsman’s report.

“The recommendations suggested by the Ombudsman will now be carefully considered by the council before responding formally.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28366%3Algo-raps-council-over-failure-to-implement-recommendations-in-planning-case&catid=63&Itemid=31

Voluntary sector demands to be involved in devolution bids

Dream on people – you are seen as a cost not a benefit or asset to our “growth led” devolution bid.

“A group of more than 30 voluntary sector leaders has set out a statement of principles for devolution across England that includes a call for greater involvement of voluntary organisations in local decision-making.

At a summit held in London on 7 September, the group set out steps that should be taken to put people at the heart of devolution in England.

Among the 16 points – covering voice and advocacy, financing devolution, and public service reform – was a call for an agreement between devolved authorities, elected officials and the voluntary sector around the design, commissioning, funding and delivery of public services.

Under the government’s devolution programme, combined authorities have reached a series of deals with Whitehall that will see them take on more powers over services including transport, planning and skills. These deals are in place in Greater Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Liverpool and the Tees Valley, although a deal for the North East Combined Authority was rejected by four of the seven councils involved last week.

At the Devolution and the Voluntary Sector Summit, leaders said devolved areas must be given the time and resources to create new democratic methods. The summit was convened by Charity Finance Group, Children England, Locality and the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action.

These new methods should not be tied to pre-existing structures and processes. There also needed to be a commitment to local and specialist voluntary organisations to help engage people and communities in devolved decisions. Of particular focus in this endeavour should be disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups.

The group expressed the view that no financial settlement should be agreed with an area until there had been an opportunity to map and assess the local needs and resources (including voluntary and private sector assets). Ahead of the government’s implementation of full business rates localisation, the summit also called on ministers to develop a method of distributing resources post-devolution that ensured that inequalities were not locked in.

The statement called for devolution to be based on the principle of subsidiary, as well as highlighting the need for an agreement between devolved authorities, elected officials and the voluntary sector about the design, commissioning, funding and delivery of public services.

Services should be commissioned on the basis of long term social outcomes rather than short term financial pressures, the group stated. Meanwhile, central government must articulate at the beginning of the process how it is accountable for services that will be devolved.

Caron Bradshaw, chief executive of Charity Finance Group, said the vision for devolution could reset the high-profile devolution drive with full involvement of the voluntary sector as an active partner to support communities.

Locality chief executive Tony Armstrong added: “There is a clear opportunity for devolution to harness the capacity and ideas of local people and organisations to transform their communities. But there is a risk that the devolution agenda is missing this potential.

“The devolution summit has been an important moment for us to come together as a sector, and think about what good devolution looks like and the principles that are essential for making this happen.”

One planning law for EDDC, another for the rest of us …

If an ordinary citizen started building work before receiving planning permission, they would be stopped. Not our council. As it decides for itself about Knowle, it is safe to say that they are confident they will grant themselves permission whatever:

East Devon District Council (EDDC) is carrying out the work, expected to take around 38 weeks to complete, as it prepares to relocate some of its offices to the town hall from Knowle, Sidmouth. [Do these works would need planning permission?]

The town council will be moving to 44 Rolle Street, from where it will continue to provide its usual services. [Does this building work need change of use?]

The council’s telephone and email contact details will remain unchanged.

The council of voluntary service will be moving to Ground Floor, Unit 15, Dinan Way, with its telephone and email contact details also remaining unchanged.

The Devon Registration Service will then leave the town hall on November 26, moving to Larkbeare House, Topsham Road, Exeter, with its telephone number also unchanged.

The town hall will remain open while the work takes place to allow EDDC to offer its housing needs, council tax and housing benefits services, which will be available between 9am and 4.30pm, Monday to Friday.

Citizens Advice will also continue to operate a drop-in service from the town hall, between 10am and 12.30pm and between 1.30pm and 3.30pm, Monday to Friday.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/council_and_services_to_move_as_town_hall_work_set_to_begin_1_4692835

Why has EDDC done a special press release for a private venue?

Even under the guise of “Heritage Week” why has EDDC put out this council press release for a privately owned and run venue?

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2016/09/heritage-day-sees-historic-home-open-to-the-public-for-the-first-time/

Does EDDC own the building? It appears not. Why did they choose it to put on some ” outdoor activities” for children there when they have coastal towns and wetlands available?

Councillor Ian Chubb says:

Our heritage and planning staff worked closely with Rockbeare Manor to deliver a refurbishment of the highest quality, advising on local apple varieties for the new orchard, for example. Our Growth Point and Countryside teams have partnered with the new owner to run this event, because the historic manor and landscaped parkland is such an important asset to the growing East Devon community.”

Were the heritage and planning staff paid for this consultancy advice? If it was free is it available to owners of other private properties in East Devon? If it was paid for – can other people access these busy EDDC employees for a fee?

EDDC now has a good number of current and former members of the hospitality industry as serving councillors, at least three of whom are currently on the EDDC Licensing Committee.

They must be careful who they sup with.

Swire works for ….. judge for yourself

Comment reposted:

Here is what Hugo has asked or spoken about since he became a back bencher:

The effect of Brexit on English students studying in Scotland

The effect of Brexit on foreign students studying in England (using Exeter Uni as an example – Ben Bradshaw’s constituency)

Progress of superfast broadband in Devon and Somerset and whether the SoS for CMS met BT to discuss broadband rollout in general

Four questions about the funding of the A30 upgrade east of Honiton and whether it will be dual carriageway (Neil Parish’s constituency)

Empty houses

Of course, the answers are pretty non-committal, so we learn nothing of real interest from these questions. Personally I would have thought that, with his many years experience as a minister successfully wriggling out of providing meaningful answers, he might be somewhat better at asking questions which would be specific enough to generate a useful answer..

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=&pid=11265&phrase=&exclude=&from=2016-07-15&to=&person=&section=&column=#n4