Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Freedom of Information Act, Tax avoidance, Transparency

Lycamobile (one of the biggest donors to the Conservative Party: how do you get information on its UK business?

19 Lycamobile officials in France have been arrested in money laundering investigations.

Here is how ine UK person’s attempt to find out what goes on with the company in the UK went:

“Dear National Crime Agency,

I note in recent revelations published by Buzzfeed news concerning Lycamobile, allegations that “the international telecoms group employs three cash couriers to drop rucksacks stuffed with hundreds of thousands of pounds twice a day at Post Offices scattered across London”. (See *)

Buzzfeed quote a statement by a former manager, “The services would be intangible – consulting or IT services, for example. It would all be billed to London.”

In Lycamobile UK’s most recent annual accounts (**), filed at Companies House… the auditors identify significant sums for which the audit records are inadequate, including “an amount of £134,133,856 owed by related parties for which the audit evidence available to us was limited because of the complex nature of the related party structure the company operators within”.

Given the involvement of UK banks, the use of intangible services in London to spend the money deposited by Lycamobile, and the qualifications to Lycamobile UK’s accounts, please could you disclose to me;

1) Confirm or deny the National Crime Agency are involved in the investigation into alleged international money laundering by Lycamobile in London. If not, please could you indicate who is?
2) Confirm or deny the co-operation of Barclays Bank with any investigation into money laundering via UK bank accounts
3) The number of corresponding arrests made in the UK

France’s Parquet National Financier;-

“On Wednesday and Thursday, 19 people suspected of being involved in a money-laundering system implicating Lycamobile and Lycamobile Services were arrested. The arrests were part of a Paris judicial investigation into money laundering and VAT fraud. Several places in Paris and its outskirts were raided and police seized about 130,000 euros in cash and 850,000 euros from bank accounts. Nine people were brought in front of a judge on Friday and charged with money laundering among other things, and eight were released on bail while one man was remanded in custody. The charges relate to money laundering of at least 17 million euros and VAT fraud of several million euros”.
Yours faithfully,

P. John”
* https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-…
** https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/compa…

And the reply was:

“OFFICIAL

Dear P. John

Thank you for contacting the National Crime Agency (NCA).

NCA is not listed in Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and as such is not obliged to respond to Freedom of Information requests. NCA is also not listed as a ‘Scottish Public Authority’ in the Freedom of Information (Scotland Act 2002).

Any information from, or relating to NCA has an absolute exemption from disclosure by other public authorities by virtue of Section 23 of the Act (as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013).

From time to time NCA will make limited information available on the web site http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk.

Whilst we will not respond to specific requests, we will consider written suggestions about information we may consider publishing in the future.

For more information about the Freedom of Information Act, please contact the Office of the Information Commissioner, or view their web site at http://www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Public Information Compliance Unit
NCA”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lycamobile_3

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Transparency, Voting

Former editor of “The Independent” thinks party politics is dead and democracy is broken

“So here is the checklist: Conservative Party: split; Labour Party: in disarray; Liberal Democrats: severe losses.

That isn’t the end of it. There is another serious development running in parallel: the decline in people’s trust in their political leaders. Which is cause, and which is consequence, it is impossible to say.

What is certain, however, is that the systematic, shameless spinning and fear-mongering of the Remain and Leave campaigns has further reduced the respect in which our aged political system is held.

The truth is that the party system – a part of our everyday lives since Labour formed its first government in 1924 – is tottering and will soon collapse. …

… I hope myself that the ‘new’ would have three characteristics. First, the political process would be more consultative than it is at present. To this end I would favour a further expansion of the work of the parliamentary select committees. These are the bodies that have recently held Mike Ashley of Sports Direct and Philip Green, the former owner of BHS, to account. They should hold hearings in regional centres as well as in the Palace of Westminster.

Second, MPs should be subject to term limits, which would mean that they could not stand for re-election to the House of Commons more than, say, twice. This would prevent the creation of a political class. Politics would no longer be a lifetime career but a public duty.

And third, citizens who have done something with their lives other than politics should be willing to stand for Parliament knowing that with term limits, it would not be a job for life.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-founding-editor-of-the-independent-thinks-democracy-is-broken-and-he-wants-to-know-what-you-a7096311.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Latest information on EDDC and devolution – done deal

Pages 104-116 here:

Click to access 280616-overview-agenda-combined.pdf

NOTE: THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO CONSULTATION WITH RESIDENTS ON ANY PART OF THIS DEAL WHICH IS BEING RAILROADED THROUGH EACH MEMBER COUNCIL

A summary:

“Our Prospectus for Prosperity was submitted to Government at the end of February 2016. Since then the Partnership has pressed the Secretary of State to enter into discussion with its negotiation team to secure a deal for the Heart of the South West.

Following an invitation from the Secretary of State, on the 25th May 2016, leaders from the upper tier authorities met with the Greg Clarke, Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to seek his view on our next steps forward.

The Secretary of State made the following comments:

Geography – the Devon and Somerset area is agreed as the appropriate scale. The proposal must clearly demonstrate why this is the right geography for the Devolution agreement and all councils and MPs must support the proposal.

Combined Authority – the Partnership will move forward into the negotiation process based on a Combined Authority model. The Mayoral issue may be considered at a later stage, within the timeline agreed by our Partnership. A Mayor will not be imposed or be a pre-condition of any initial deal.

Extent of the deal – areas that have agreed to have a Mayor will get more powers than a non-Mayoral Combined Authority deal. However, the negotiation process will be an opportunity to push the limits of this initial deal, and the process should be viewed as being incremental.

Timeline – we will still work towards an Autumn Statement timeline for the announcement of an initial deal.

Growth Deal 3 – the LEP would not be penalised in Growth Deal 3 negotiations because the area does not have a Devolution deal with a Mayor. The decision for allocation will be based purely on the quality of the Growth Deal bid.

The Secretary of State went on to advise that if the Partnership, backed by each Council and MPs, would sign up to the principle of creating a Combined Authority by the end of July 2016 he would arrange for the Treasury to open up negotiations towards a deal.

This report seeks approval to sign up ‘in principle’ to the pursuit of a Devolution Deal and the creation of a Combined Authority for the Heart of the South West sub-region to administer the powers devolved through the Deal.

An ‘in principle’ agreement from all of the authorities, partners and MPs involved in the Heart of the South West devolution process will open up negotiations with Treasury to work towards a deal.

Any final devolution deal with government will be subject to further approval/ratification by all partners individually. A Heads of Terms document will be used as a negotiating tool to seek additional powers and funding to accelerate the delivery of 163,000 new jobs, 179,000 new homes and an economy of over £53bn GVA by 2030.

It should be noted that there is no intention for the Combined Authority to take existing powers or funding from local authorities, or existing city deal governance structures, without the explicit agreement of those constituent local authorities. More detailed work will be undertaken to identify the decision-making powers and the constitution of the Combined Authority, and all partners will be fully involved and consulted on these arrangements as they develop.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project, Regeneration

Save Exmouth Seafront public meeting Saturday 2 July 2pm

To update people on the campaign before and after the Town Poll and to hear what residents think and what to do next

All Saints Church Hall
Exeter Road

All welcome

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Spin, Transparency, Voting

Political spending US-style

Remember £15,000 for a jar of Hugo Swire’s honey in 2014:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/10944187/City-Diary-After-dinner-auction-could-turn-into-a-honey-trap-for-the-Tories.html

and Hugo’s remarks about people on benefits at the auction he chaired in 2015:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/10944187/City-Diary-After-dinner-auction-could-turn-into-a-honey-trap-for-the-Tories.html

Owl, having read below about how Donald Trump manages his election expenses, wonders how much of the battle bus expenses ended up back in donors pockets.

“Donald Trump loves to brag about his wealth. But as he heads into the general election in November, his campaign’s bank account is almost empty (for a presidential candidate) — he has just $1.3 million on hand, nearly 40 times less than presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

And a lot of the money the Trump campaign has spent is going directly back to Donald Trump. In May, according to Federal Election Commission filings, Trump spent about $1 million of his campaign’s funds on products and services from business he owns, including:

$423,372 to rent out Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach club
$349,540 to Tag Air, his fleet of private jets
$29,715 to rent out the Trump International Golf Club
$35,845 to rent out the Trump National Golf Club
$72,800 in rent on Trump Tower

Earlier this year, the Trump campaign spent thousands to stay at Trump hotels, eat at Trump restaurants, and serve Trump bottled water at their events. The Associated Press calculated that, in all, $6 million of Trump campaign money has gone back to the Trump Organization.

Campaigns are required to pay the fair market value for the goods and services they purchase, even if they’re paying a company owned by the candidate. (Otherwise, Trump’s companies could give him a big advantage by allowing him to use facilities for free, while Clinton, who is not a real estate magnate, has to pay for venues where she holds her events.) Trump, naturally, wants to host events at properties he owns.

Since Trump’s campaign funds still mostly come from a loan from the candidate himself, a lot of this spending is just passing Trump’s money around. But as the campaign goes on and Trump seeks out more donations, some of the money from his supporters will end up flowing right back to him.”

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11988298/trump-campaign-spending-trump

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Police (local), Transparency

What do we now about the expenses scandals and what do we still need to know?

A site that gives information and answers:

“The Electoral Commission is investigating. So too, are more than a dozen police forces. So far 21 local constabularies have been granted an extra year by magistrates to complete their investigations. So while we wait to hear back from the Met there are still a number of questions that need to be answered.”

http://www.unlockdemocracy.org/election-expenses

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Lobbying, Tax avoidance, Transparency

One of the largest donors to (both factions of) the Tory Party arrested in France over money laundering allegations

“Nineteen people working for the biggest donor to the Conservative Party have been arrested in France in connection with a multi-million pounds tax and money laundering scandal.

All are linked to Lycamobile, the multinational telecoms giant, which has given at least £2.2m to Prime Minister David Cameron’s party since 2011, including half-a-million last year alone.

Lycamobile also allowed Boris Johnson to use one of their call centres during his successful 2012 campaign to become Mayor of London. …

… Mr Jochimek [a director] appeared in a Paris criminal court on Friday, along with nine others who have been charged with a variety of offences related to financial fraud.

They specifically relate to alleged illicit transactions of 13 million pounds, but the French authorities believe the figure could be far higher.

It follows an investigation by BuzzFeed that caught Lycamobile ‘employing three cash couriers to drop rucksacks stuffed with hundreds of thousands of pounds twice a day at Post Offices scattered across London,’ according to the news site.

Bundles of cash were seized in raids on Lycamobile’s Paris headquarters, and a series of residential and business addresses across the city, while the company’s French bank accounts have since been frozen.

Lycamobile’s Sri Lankan-born owner, Subaskaran Allirajah, is a member of the exclusive Leader’s Group for top Tory donors.

He has dined with Mr Cameron or members of his cabinet twice in the past six months, and is also close to Mr Johnson, after bankrolling his campaign.

None of those involved admit any wrongdoing, with Lycamobile previously claiming that the filmed cash drops were just ‘day to day banking’.

But according to Buzzfeed investigators the French authorities have identified money coming from shell companies suspected of acting as fronts for ‘various networks laundering profits from crime.’

Buzzfeed probed 19 companies that allegedly funnelled tens of millions of euros into Lycamobile’s French accounts.

All but one ‘was registered at PO boxes, vacant offices, derelict buildings, or a construction site.’ David Cameron pledged to crack down on money laundering and offshore tax avoidance at the global anti-corruption summit in London last month.

He said he wanted to ‘send a clear message to the corrupt that there is no home for them here’.

According to the Buzzfeed investigation, Lycamobile is selling its prepaid calling cards on the black market in Paris for cash, and is then using a ‘a vast system of false billing’ to invoice fake companies for the sales in order to conceal other illicit payments.

Lycamobile’s own auditors declared over the past two years that they could not account for total of £646 million that moved through 10 companies in its complex corporate network.

Lycamobile is the world’s largest mobile virtual network operator, buying international airtime in bulk and selling it to millions of customers around the world on relatively cheap prepaid calling cards.

It has reported an annual turnover of 1.5 billion pounds, while legally avoiding corporation tax in the UK and Ireland by moving its money to the tax haven of Madeira.

Following the original Buzzfeed enquiry, the Labour Party wrote to the Conservatives demanding that the party freeze all donations from Lycamobile pending further investigations, but the letter was ignored. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3649301/Offices-Conservative-Party-s-biggest-donor-Lycamobile-raided-French-police-nine-people-charged-suspicion-money-laundering-tax-fraud.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Environment (local), Local Enterprise Partnership, Natural England, Transparency

“Cronyism in the south west”

Something we all know about in East Devon!

“Cronyism in the South West”
The sheer amount of unsuitable and damaging development that has been pushed through against all objections in my home town of Totnes, but also throughout the south west, is making me question the role of cronyism in the deals made.

It starts at the very top of course in government, but appears to have sucked up many of our more august bodies that we are more used to seeing as our defenders and protection, into its net. The National Trust for example, now has a right wing business leader as its head. I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that this is as a result of any wrong doing, but I question why he is there, when he comes with no history of interest or involvement in conservation or the heritage sector. It is a coincidence of course that the National Trust appear to be engaged recently in the development business themselves, aiming to sell land, given to them in trust in Bovery Tracey and also in Somerset, for housing. To say local people aren’t happy is a bit of an understatement.

Natural England also, is now headed up by a right wing business man, an ex-developer actually, with little to no interest up to now in the environment, or preserving the countryside, he was too busy working to concrete it over as head of Linden Homes. George Monbiot describes his appointment as, ‘The government wants a chairman who can flog nature and have chosen a Tory party donor with a background in investment banking and housing developments.’

So our conservation and heritage organisations appear to be headed by cronies, our secretive Local Enterprise Partnership appears to be also. This is the self-appointed group tasked with pouring vast amounts of public money into encouraging enterprise and business down here and with running our devolution bid. The fact that the majority of those on the board come from the construction and housing sector and a few who are involved in weapons manufacturing won’t come as a surprise when you see that our devolution bid, which they mostly engineered, is very heavy on giant construction projects, which the board’s companies appear to profit from and very weak on tourism, farming and sustainability. This bid is about growth. ‘I want to only build structures that you can see from space,’ the chair is quoted as saying. The fact that this undemocratically elected group hold their meetings in private, have no head office, very little accountability and have managed to keep the lid on their activities very successfully is worrying and the ultimate in cronyism.

This culture goes down the line; housing developments pushed through when they are so obviously damaging and ridiculous. In Totnes, Great Court Farm was sold to developers in very suspect circumstances in my opinion. It is the last dairy farm in Totnes, the home to a fourth generation of farmers, a totally unsuitable spot for yet more mass building in this beleaguered town. The access is terrible, the logistics ridiculous and yet it was pushed through by a combination of cronyism and mis-management. The people who suffer are the people who always suffer when cronyism is allowed to flourish and that’s us – everyone else and in this instance the farmer and his family and the people of Totnes, who see their landscape the plaything of those in power.

Across the county, across the country in fact, the same story is played out endlessly. Local people left shocked and devastated as those in power find the wherewithal to circumnavigate due process and make an absolute fortunes flogging nature and our land to line their own pockets.”

https://allengeorgina.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/comment-piece-for-western-morning-news-cronyism/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Devolution, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Spin, Transparency

Our LEP’s “Strategic Plan” 2014-2030

Although it was published in March 2016, this is worth re-reading in the light of declining economic forecasts for which our LEP has no contingency plans.

Here is just a flavour of it with its “Executive Summary”. It is a masterpiece of spin over substance.

And who on earth thought up the “‘golden thread from the bottom up”!

“Our vision is to transform the reputation and positioning of our area nationally and globally by 2030.

We want the key strengths of the Heart of the South West to be seen as key assets of UK plc. We want our people, places and business to see the public and private sector work together for their benefit; capitalising on the opportunities on our doorstep, realising the potential for high growth in our knowledge economy, and securing more and higher value jobs.

However, addressing the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure and investing in strategic enablers are key to unleashing our growth potential.

Our Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) sets out our understanding of the challenges we have to overcome and our priorities for action. It has been developed in collaboration and consultations with partners from business, education, the public sector and the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sectors, ensuring a golden thread runs through it from the bottom up, taking into account local plans and aspirations; and top down, taking into account national policy objectives and guidelines.

Our SEP will be the base document for our approach to investment and funding opportunities until its review in 2020 and will be delivered through a number of mechanisms over its lifetime. The Plymouth and Peninsula City Deal, the European Structural and Investment Strategy and the Growth Deal 2015, submitted alongside our SEP, are key delivery strands agreed or negotiated in 2014. Others may follow.”

https://www.lepnetwork.net/modules/downloads/download.php?file_name=19

But the consultations referred to above did not include us – the voters. The ” golden thread” doesn’t actually start at the bottom!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, Transport (local)

“Elected mayors could be as remote from the public as Whitehall”

“Most areas in England will soon have a directly elected mayor, but without proper scrutiny mayors alone won’t solve the local accountability problem.

Before too long, most people living in England will find they have a directly elected mayor in their area, making big decisions on transport, economic development, skills, further education, and possibly public health and policing. These mayors will sit at the heart of devolution deals, agreed between central government and local areas, which will see accountability and responsibility decentralised.

Beyond elections, there will be quite limited local mechanisms for holding these mayors to account. True, combined authorities – bodies made up of elected councillor leaders from across the area – will have a role in decision-making. These combined authorities in turn must establish overview and scrutiny committees of local councillors, to hold decision-makers to account – mirroring the arrangements which apply to most local authorities.

But the existence of these new structures is not in itself a guarantee of accountability. There needs to be an active effort by mayors and local councils to ensure these arrangements really work in the way intended.

Poor accountability will lead to services feeling and looking just as remote as they do when directed from London
Nationally, the systems for accountability seem, oddly, rather stronger. Devolution deals give government significant powers to hold local areas to account for their delivery under the deal.

Funding comes with strings attached and can be withheld if expectations are not met. Whitehall is keen to continue to assert its authority – and parliament is keen to support it. Recently, the Commons public accounts committee (PAC) placed devolution deals alongside major national schemes like e-borders in highlighting the risks of huge amounts of public money being spent without parliamentary oversight. But this fails to take account of the fact that effective oversight will work best if it works at local level. …

… What will happen if we fail to develop robust systems for accountability at local level? The first risk is that devolution will be anything but – a decentralisation of responsibility while power remains firmly at the centre. A tussle of power and responsibility between those at local and national level will only ever be won by Whitehall, which has the interest and the power to maintain the status quo.

The second is that devolution will fail to deliver the outcomes which have been promised. The only way that devolution will be a success is if local politicians are able to take more power to develop and implement creative, exciting ways to improve local people’s lives. Poor or non-existent accountability will lead to services feeling and looking just as remote as they have done when directed from London. …

… Areas with devolution deals in place will have to take it upon themselves to develop systems that will give local people confidence that deals will be implemented in their interests, and that they will have an opportunity to influence this implementation. …”

http://gu.com/p/4yvp8

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution

Cheshire devolution deal stumbles

… “Whilst the benefits of devolution are extremely favourable for our residents, the Government’s insistence on an elected mayor has made it difficult for all politicians to come to an agreement.

“The majority of councillors in Cheshire West and Chester were likely to support a consultation to seek the views of residents.

Housing concerns

Michael Jones, the former leader of Cheshire East Council, has said he is in favour of devolution – but not a deal which could involve more than 100,000 new homes in mid and south Cheshire.

A report on the LEP website talks of an aim to build a “constellation new city through the expansion and linkage of the cluster of towns and villages in mid-Cheshire with an expanded Crewe at its heart.”

But Cllr Jones says this was not the deal on the table when he was discussing devolution.

“The Northern Gateway which I put forward in 2014 – the aim was to work with our neighbours, Stoke, Newcastle, Staffordshire Moorlands and Shropshire, to get them to have houses,” he said.

“But they’re no longer talking about [them]… it’s all about what is going in Cheshire East and Crewe city, which was never agreed.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Police (local), Transparency

Hernandez

Why hasn’t she stood down now she is under investigation? Officers in the police force would have to do so. It is not an admission of guilt, it is to ensure that investigations are clear of any influence.

In her job she will be meeting with other PCCs and Chief Constables from other areas, including the area investigating her.

Muddy waters and our Police and Crime Panel should be clearing them, otherwise, with a Conservative majority on the Panel, they could be accused of protecting one of their own.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire

Ministerial “code”?

How come a Minister can’t talk about his constituency in Parliament but CAN say which side he supports in a referendum that will affect his all his constituents for decades to come?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Budleigh Salterton, Health and Social Care (local), Transparency

Budleigh Hospital – the, somewhat hazy, future?

These are notes written by an attendee at the recent meeting about the future of Budleigh Hospital. It represents the attendee’s personal views.

The way in which ” rent” is being tackled is very novel but, as always, the devil is in the detail.

Owl hopes the League of Friends has access to good lawyers!

“Budleigh Hospital League of Friends AGM followed by Wellbeing Hub Q&A 16/06/16

Chair’s perspective

• According to Chair, Dr David Evans, Swire and Toby Williams have been ‘very helpful in ironing out problems’ – more info on this would be interesting – eg what has Swire actually done (probably just enabling the roll out of Tory ideological destruction of the NHS at a local level?!).

• Dr David Evans also reported that he thinks the wellbeing hub is a pioneering project, one that he believes will be a model of success that other community hospitals in Devon will want to follow. There was a confusing and bizarre message that we should be proud of what we have (an empty building?!). Perhaps he was referring to the work of the League of Friends who do seem to put a lot of work into something that must be very incredibly frustrating.

NHS Property Services

• A contract will be signed between the League of Friends and the RD&E FT that will allow the Wellbeing Hub to ‘overcome’ the commercial rent issue for charitable organisations.

• The League of Friends described this lease as a ‘compromise’. In practice all rent will still be commercial (as they kept saying, this is ‘a legal requirement’), however as the League of Friends has money (raised locally) that they want to invest into the building, they have agreed (verbally at this point), that the money invested by the League of Friends will be converted into a lease – so a £100,000 investment in the property will be translated into a reduction (% unclear) for charitable sector users.

Sustainability, administration, etc all unclear, my question was about clarifying what was initially just a mention of this lease/compromise, but the answer didn’t go far enough.

• However a local alternative therapies practitioner (eg I know of one who wanted to rent space) would probably be charged commercial rent and therefore unlikely to be feasible for them to work from/offer services from the wellbeing hub.

The wellbeing hub

• In September they hope to have some example services available. But then this was contradicted with no access to building until 2017.

• Building is still in reasonable condition and a report of the work done while closed has been issued to the League of Friends (cost of work maintaining the empty building could be an interesting FOI as the League of Friends did not specify).

• It was suggested that the closure has allowed time to consider and test what ideas will work for the hub. Not convinced by this logic – I am pretty sure the hospital demonstrated that.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Council tax

“Councils or company bosses, those in power have a duty of stewardship”

Letter in Guardian:

“Aditya Chakrabortty (Opinion, 14 June) compared my appearance before a Tottenham magistrate [for refusing to pay council tax in protest against cuts to social security] with Philip Green’s appearance before MPs. It is an apt comparison. In both cases the authorities failed to take steps to prevent the kind of disasters facing the pensioners of BHS or the benefit claimants of the London borough of Haringey.

In my case, I asked Grant Thornton, Haringey’s auditors, to take into account the damage done to the wellbeing of many benefit claimants by welfare “reform” when auditing the enforcement costs, now £115, added by the council to the council tax arrears of more than 20,000 households a year. It is a last straw that breaks many hearts already struggling with rent and utility arrears and benefit sanctions .

Grant Thornton replied: “We have no remit … to opine on the impact of this policy on the wellbeing of those required to pay council tax.” Why not? Why didn’t Haringey tell them that the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Communities and Local Government have issued guidance specifically drawing the attention of courts and councils to the vulnerable circumstances of residents. Or Lord Freud tell them that “Four principles have underpinned welfare reforms. First the welfare system should support the elderly, vulnerable and disabled people…”

Reverend Paul Nicolson
Taxpayers Against Poverty”

http://gu.com/p/4yenj

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, County councillors, Democracy, Devolution, Dorset, Transparency

Dorset, devolution and democracy

Although this is about Dorset, much of it applies to Devon and East Devon. At least in Dorset, councillors (for now) remain in charge of their own destiny. In Devon and Somerset they have abdicated their responsibilities to local (and national and international) business interests, including developers and those with nuclear and arms interests.

And Dorset is making a token attempt to consult residents (although, as typical in these cases, they seem to be trying to keep it under their radar) unlike Devon and Somerset which have hijacked the process from under our noses amid secrecy and subterfuge.

“You are probably aware that Dorset County Council (DCC) is considering changing the way it is structured and moving to a Unitary Authority.

This means the district / borough level of local government would be abolished. It will likely mean fewer elected councillors making decisions and reduce overall capacity to deal with the needs of local residents.

Power is already far too removed. Instead of moving towards a vision of localisation, the proposed changes have the potential to create an even bigger gap in local democracy.

There will be a public consultation on this through July – September, a decision will be made by DCC, and should they wish to proceed with a Unitary Authority, a proposal to central government in early 2017.

It is currently uncertain if DCC will apply to postpone the 2017 County Council elections, but this has been voiced in DCC meetings as a possibility.

You are probably NOT aware of a separate plan for a Dorset Combined Authority (DCA) to cover:

· Dorset County Council
· Bournemouth Borough Council
· Poole Borough Council
· Purbeck District Council
· East Dorset District Council
· Christchurch Borough Council
· West Dorset District Council
· North Dorset District Council
· Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

In essence this is a body of 10 members, 9 drawn from elected councillors (a sort of super-cabinet) and 1 Local Enterprise Partner (someone appointed from “big business”).

The Dorset Combined Authority will have specific decision-making power, covering economic growth, regeneration / infrastructure and transportation. We are concerned there will be no environmental voice on this Authority. There is worry that a programme of road building that would literally pave the way to support oil & gas exploration and production (e.g. fracking) would go unchallenged:

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/421876/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-Dorset-Combined-Authority

Why are we telling you this?

The public “consultation” for the DCA is happening right now! Our apologies we did not become aware of this earlier. But even with our eyes and ears open across Dorset, Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch this proposal and process was not on our radar until very recently. But it is now!

What can you do?

There are 3 key things we would ask you to engage in:

1. Participate in the consultation survey on the Dorset For You website. The closing date is

Friday 17th June

(yes, we know, it is a very hurried and low-key consultation). Just click on the link below to take part in the quite short survey:

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/422462/Give-us-your-views-on-the-Dorset-Combined-Authority-proposals

You may wish to say that for changes as serious as this, you would expect a referendum, and not just a short consultation exercise.

2. Write to your local town / parish, district / borough, county Councillor(s)and ask them one, some or all of the following:

Ask them to explain to you what the Dorset Combined Authority is all about. Ask them if they are aware of the consultation process, and if so why they have not done more in your ward to inform you about it and encourage engagement.

Ask them for their opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of the Dorset Combined Authority. Ask them if they think this is increasing or decreasing democracy at the local level.

Ask them if there will be a representative on the Authority focused on ensuring decisions around growth, infrastructure and transportation will be evaluated for their impact on the local environment (e.g. air pollution, wildlife protection, open spaces, etc.) and on the consequences for Climate Change.

Ask them how the 10 members will be selected or appointed. Ask them how those members will be held accountable for their decisions and by whom.

There may be other things you will want to ask them, but the above are a few ideas. If you are not familiar with the names and email addresses of the local councillors, a list of the councillors at all levels by each area / ward / division for West and South Dorset can be found within the article on our website:

https://westandsouthdorset.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/06/14/changes-to-dorset%E2%80%99s-democracy-and-council-structure/

Many thanks for taking an interest and we hope you will take some action if you can.

Caz Dennett

Campaign Manager, West & South Dorset Green Party”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Our LEP and its “decisions” and “minutes”

At its last board meeting (18 May 2016) the Heart of the Southwest LEP “discussed” and ” noted” several things but doesn’t appear to have decided or actually done anything:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/board-minutes-0

Unfortunately, minutes don’t appear until the next agenda is produced in July 2016.

Here is their last set of “minutes”:

Click to access LEP%20Board%20Agenda%2C%2015%20March%202016_3.pdf

Note there is no list of attendees and ” decisions” were to

“approve an approach” to “Growth Deal 3″

” agree to amend a funding allocation” followsing a “recent information from DCLG about changes to European (ERDF) funding for Nuclear build and decommissioning projects”

“note increased risk” to fund the Tiverton Urban extension and the mitigation actions being taken

“agree to delegate management decisions” about its budget to a sub-committee noting “Any variances in budget lines (singly or in aggregate) of more than 10% or £100,000 would require reference back to the board.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Greater Exeter, Teignbridge, Transparency

“Greater Exeter” – not so great? Show yourselves “Greater Exeter Visioning Board”!

This article from May 2016 asks: what happened to the “vision for Greater Exeter” which, as the writer says, was a partnership between East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge, set up in November 2014. Nothing at all exists to show what it did, does or might do in future.

It is interesting to note that, at that time, Cabinets and senior officers of all three authorities must have aware of devolution plans.

“Whose Vision is it anyway

It’s a truism that politicians (and not only politicians) love making good news announcements. Even when they have to announce bad news, it’s always presented as positively as the spin doctors can manage. Announcements which are then followed up by nothing at all are not unheard of – after all, it’s the fact of announcing something that generates the media coverage, and then the circus moves on.

But what barely figures in the spin doctors’ handbook is the announcement which is then followed not so much by nothing as by a veil of secrecy. And here in Devon, we have a fine example.

On 24 November 2014, three district councils – East Devon, Exeter City and Teignbridge – announced that there were setting up a partnership to be called Greater Exeter, Greater Devon [1]. The stated aim is “to drive forward economic growth” through “joined-up decision making on planning, housing, resources and infrastructure”. A Greater Exeter Visioning Board would meet every month “to define work priorities”. The Board’s membership would be the leaders, chief executives and economic development lead councillors of each of the councils.

Leaving aside the question of whether economic growth is the right objective, this seems a potentially useful measure. The three councils cover adjacent areas and face transport and land use pressures, particularly in Exeter and its surroundings.

In the course of keeping up to date with local initiatives I recently trawled the councils’ websites for news of the monthly meetings of the Visioning Board. Nothing at all. So, focussing on Exeter City Council, I looked for minutes of meetings that approved the setting up of the Board and received reports from it. Nothing at all.

Next step, ask the council. After the usual 20 days had elapsed, an Exeter City Council officer sent me a reply confirming the Board’s membership and setting out the dates each month on which it had met since its inception . However, the reply stated that the minutes of the Board’s meetings were not available to the public, though no reason for this was given.

So, here we are. A local authority body, promoted as a driver for economic growth and coordinating policies and planning on key issues, is announced with much fanfare and then vanishes into a cloak of secrecy.

Open government, indeed. I’ve asked the City Council a series of questions about the Board’s authority, functions and accountability. Watch this space for their response.”

https://petercleasby.com/tag/greater-exeter-visioning-board/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Hugo Swire, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDA INVITES HUGO SWIRE TO BECOME INDEPENDENT

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/news/20160614/eda-invites-hugo-swire-to-become-independent/

Hugo Swire MP has used his blog to attack the idea of Independents both in Parliament and at District Council level. This is EDA Chairman, Paul Arnott’s response:

“The last time I saw Hugo in the paper he was greeting US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to the anti-corruption summit in London. It seemed marvellous that although the Swire family name was dotted throughout the Panama papers Hugo was joining the fight for accountability and transparency.

So, may I suggest that he casts off the shackles of Conservative membership, and the ministerial code which he claims prevents him speaking in Parliament about his constituency, and join the free-to-speak, free-to-act Independents? With all the extra time he may even be able to find a home down here.

But as a matter of fact, Hugo is wrong that East Devon Alliance Independents operate as a bloc in the council. There are 15 Independents in the Independent group, including 9 who are also members of the EDA, and it is a matter of record that every one of them votes as they individually decide. There has never been and never will be the kind of arm-twisting beloved of EDDC’s Tory hierarchy, which itself does a disservice to many excellent Conservative councillors as perturbed by this as us.

As to being anti-Tory, this is a canard Hugo has tried to float before. In fact, we have just made a submission to the Home Office in support of his colleague Theresa May’s Action Plan on Money Laundering and Terrorist Finance, with reference to the possibility of money laundering through property development. This is as relevant in East Devon as it is to the gleaming new towers of central London.

Finally, the EDA registered with the Electoral Commission precisely so that our microscopic spend at the May 2105 elections was open to analysis by the public. We look forward to Hugo’s views regarding a number of his Devon Conservative colleagues whose own Parliamentary electoral expenditure returns are now being investigated by the West Mercia Police.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts

Another fat cat getting fatter at our expense

Oh, the joys of unfettered capitalism!

“The boss of Britain’s worst rail company subjecting passengers to daily delays has been awarded a £2million pay deal.

David Brown, chief executive of Go-Ahead, saw a 10 per cent rise in his overall package for June 2014-2015, despite the poor performance of its rail franchises.

It also more than doubled from £924,000 the previous year, and £36.7 million was paid out to shareholders in dividends, up from £34.7 million the year before.

The huge payouts and increase in pay package revealed were branded ‘a national disgrace’ by a union boss.

After the figures emerged, one commuter write on Twitter: ‘Thank you for fleecing the entire commuting public.’

Mr Brown is the boss of Go-Ahead, which runs a number of companies including GTR, the operator of rail franchises Southeastern, Thameslink and Great Northern.

A survey by Which? found that passengers voted it the worst rail company in the country, with a satisfaction rating of just 46 per cent.

GTR also had the most delays and cancellations caused by a lack of train staff between April 1 2013 and December 12 last year with 62,000 incidents, according to Office of Rail and Road figures.

But last year, it warned passengers to expect three more years of misery until renovations to London Bridge station were complete.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640455/Boss-Britain-s-worst-performing-train-company-awarded-2-1MILLION-pay-deal-branded-national-disgrace.html