“Those who can’t afford a home are being abandoned”

“Cash from council sell-offs will go to high-earning first-time buyers. It’s a huge blow to social housing.

Is this the worst thing this government has done? That’s a tough choice for those low-earning households written off as unlikely to vote Tory. Governments come and go, attempting to reverse each other’s actions – Labour spends more, then Tories cut back, but the housing and planning bill now in the Lords will do virtually irreparable damage.

The bill takes away properties from those who can never afford to buy, to give a large subsidy to better-off aspiring under-40s to buy starter homes. Council and housing association homes will be sold off, deliberately transferring housing provision from the worst-off to those above them – another trickle up.

This bill forces housing associations to sell homes to tenants (probably only the better-off ones) at a discount. To compensate housing associations, councils will be obliged to sell their most valuable properties – so two social homes are lost for each one sold. The money raised by the local authority sales will also pay for 20% discounts to first-time buyers of starter homes at prices of up to £450,000.

All parties want more home ownership, falling fast because of high prices. Generation rent is paying more to landlords than a mortgage costs. The injustice is in making councils pay for this subsidy from resources earmarked for families on waiting lists, instead of meeting it from general taxation.

Once sold, these homes can never be brought back into the social sector. Of the 2m council properties sold so far, over a third have ended up with private landlords who charge high rents. For every nine council homes sold, only one replacement has been built.

That’s why this is an un-housing bill. It will lose 180,000 social homes in the next five years, with 88,000 council homes gone, according to the local government association. George Osborne’s eye-catching 1% cut to social rents has already stopped dead plans to build 14,000 social homes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Nor does the rent cut help most tenants, who just get it clawed back from housing benefit.

Worse is to come. As more people have moved on to universal credit, with their rent no longer automatically paid, 89% have fallen into arrears so far, further depleting money for new social housing. A third of housing associations are building no new affordable homes.

The bill is punitive towards tenants, making any council-house family who together earn more than £30,000 (£40,000 in London) pay a market rent, often so steep they will have to leave. The Treasury will snatch this pay-to-stay extra rent – so it can’t be used for local housing. New tenants only get short tenancies of two to five years so they risk joining the insecure multitude of families in the private sector with six-month rental agreements.

Security was the great gift of social housing. A family knew they would stay near their jobs and schools, make local bonds and join lasting communities. Good estates have stable populations, which include some people with average incomes. How do you educate children who keep moving schools, never settling? Already there are 1.5 million children growing up in private rented homes, without security of tenure.

A family support worker I spoke to last week was struggling to help a family who had moved four times in just over two years – because of temporary housing and short tenancies – with the children moving schools each time. One mother, sent to a distant town, had been leaving home for a bus at 6am every morning to try to keep her children in their old school two hours away, in the hope she would find a home in their old neighbourhood; but she had to give up.

A few weeks ago I spent time in court watching eviction cases, talking to tenants whose lives had become rootless through insecure jobs causing arrears. Landlords are eager to re-let flats at higher rents as prices soar. Most of those families will never reach the safe haven of a council home.

Ending social housing is part of the great escape from the welfare state planned by David Cameron and Osborne. But they may yet again be tripped up by their failure to think beyond ideology. Are they really willing to abandon the third of citizens who can never join their homeowning democracy? Tipping them on to the street is embarrassing, which is why the rising number of street homeless were given a small bung in the budget.

If not abandonment, then there are only two options: build social housing at a cheap rent; or leave people to private landlords where housing benefit picks up the bill. Even capped, housing benefit is extravagantly wasteful when – as Labour’s housing spokesman, John Healey, points out – building social housing makes a profit from rent after 20 years, by far the cheaper option. The government hasn’t dared abolish councils’ duty to house the vulnerable or homeless families with children, but how can they do that with ferocious budget cuts and this bill stripping away existing properties?

No wonder Tory as well as Labour council leaders are up in arms. Surrey’s leader wrote to the Guardian to protest at being forced to sell his council houses. Good for the Lords, who tonight followed up last week’s rebellions with more amendments to pay-to-stay plans. Valiant objections from trusted crossbenchers, such as Bob Kerslake, former head of the civil service, may force the government to soften some terms.

But nothing will prevent the main provisions passing: this is the first bill under English votes for English laws, stopping Scottish MPs voting – so despite some Tory rebels, it will pass in the Commons easily.

Eventually only real-world consequences can force the government to reconsider. Though housing is a fast-rising public concern, this bill has had too little attention. Though 74% worry about housing themselves or for their children or grandchildren, this demolition of social housing is still below the political radar. Ownership is political dynamite, but social housing gets less traction.

Ask how this government plans to house the many who could never afford full-cost rents and it has no answer. In their magical thinking, if council estates are sold off, the troublesome poorer denizens will melt into thin air.

This bill takes a wrecking ball to the great social housing ideals founded by Octavia Hill and other philanthropists who understood that decent housing is the bedrock of a decent society.”

http://gu.com/p/4te9m

Remind you of anything?

Should anyone find this disgraceful and wish to draw it to the attention of the council’s MP, then write to George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whose constituency this is taking place.

Perhaps he and Hugo Swire could have a little chat about their experiences.

“Councillor Sam Gardener, who was initially the Conservative-run [Cheshire East] council’s deputy cabinet member for finance and assets, resigned after revelations that he failed to disclose that he was barred from being a company director when CEC gave him responsibility for the local authority’s finances in May 2015.

The ban relates to charity donations that failed to reach the intended charity but were transferred into the account of a company in which Mr Gardener was a director. That company subsequently went into liquidation owing creditors £440,000.

You might think it prudent for any prospective cabinet member, let alone one involved in finance, to be closely vetted for any fiscal irregularities but apparently Cheshire East did not.

“I was not obliged under Council rules to disclose the matter of my disqualification as a company director when interviewed for my Cabinet position and the disqualification is in no way incompatible with my duties as a portfolio holder,” said Councillor Gardener.

Mmm… let me consider that for a moment: disqualification from being a company director for financial irregularities is ‘in no way incompatible with my duties as a portfolio holder.’

Councillor Gardener may have had some difficulty selling that to taxpayers (had they known).

So how did CEC react on discovering his disbarment?

“The Council and the residents of Cheshire East have lost the services of a highly talented, sensitive and dynamic young man who has chosen to step down,” said Council Leader Rachel Bailey.

It sounds somewhat reminiscent of the statement made by managing director of the CEC loss-making CoSocius who claimed the company ‘made progress in a number of areas and contributed to the success of other areas.’

(What he didn’t say was that his company somehow managed to lose £800K of taxpayers’ cash in only eleven months trading and notch up a pension deficit of £8.5M.)

Only in Cheshire East could the resignation of a cabinet member disqualified from being a company director for financial irregularities be described as a ‘highly talented, sensitive and dynamic young man.’

Clearly Councillor Bailey was not one of those creditors left with debts of £440K who I suspect would have an altogether different opinion.

I really don’t know what point of reference the CEC leadership uses for evaluating its performance. Undeterred by its mammoth losses at CoSocius they launch two new identical trading companies and describe a disbarred company director as a ‘dynamic young man.’

Residents financing this political circus may use another vocabulary.”

http://www.wilmslow.co.uk/news/article/13509/barlows-beef–another-monumental-blunder-from-cheshire-east

Dorset cuts services and vastly increases managers’ pay ‘because they are worth it’

” … The item was listed as exempt in the staffing committee meeting, meaning press and public could not attend, but minutes published online since reveal that the committee recommended the pay rise for approval.

Heads of service are currently paid between £63,348 and £79,714 per year. The new pay structure would mean heads of service are paid a chief officer salary of £80,500 to £85,000 (Band 4) or £86,500 to £91,000 (Band 3).

Wages for all the heads of services are available in documents publicly available online and research by the Dorset Echo reveals that if all 15 heads of service are given the pay rise to the lowest end of Band 4, the annual cost would be £61,443.62.

A spokesman for the county council confirmed that six heads of service would be eligible for a band three and nine would be eligible for band four.

In the minutes from the meeting, the pay increases are justified by stating that the role has ‘changed significantly’ and there has been a reduction of heads of services over the last 10 years.

But Amanda Brown, Dorchester branch secretary for Unison, said the rise is ‘just not acceptable’. …”

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14436155.Council_cutting_services_gives_managers_a_pay_rise___but_they_deserve_it__says_report/?ref=twt

Where Dorset leads no doubt Devon and Somerset will follow.

Wonder how much our LEP members pay themselves …

Parish councils don’t need the right to appeal planning decisions says government

“The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Give parish councils the right to appeal planning decisions.”.

Government responded:

The Government places great importance on community involvement in the planning system. Parish councils have statutory rights to contribute their views in the planning process.

The planning system is centred on community involvement. Communities, including parish councils and individual members of the public, have statutory rights to become involved in the preparation of the Local Plan for their area, through which they can influence development in their area. The local community can also come together to produce a neighbourhood plan, which sets out how the community want to see their own neighbourhood develop. Neighbourhood plans are often initiated by parish councils. Local and neighbourhood plans form the basis for decisions on planning applications.

In addition to input on local plans and neighbourhood plans, which set out the local development strategy, communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.

The right of appeal following the refusal of an application is an important part of a planning system which controls the ability of an individual to carry out their development proposals. The existing right of appeal recognises that, in practice, the planning system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. As a result, the Government believes it is right that an applicant has the option of an impartial appeal against the refusal of planning permission. This existing right of appeal compensates for the removal of the individual’s right to develop.

However, the Government does not believe that a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities, including parish councils, is necessary. The Government considers that communities already have opportunity to guide and inform local planning issues via Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process. The Government does not think that the planning system would benefit from the grant of a community right of appeal which would lead to added delay, uncertainty and cost for all those involved.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Click this link to view the response online:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110489?reveal_response=yes

A scary description of the state we are in (and a manifesto for Local Enterprise Partnerships?)

“Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers. …

… The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.” …

… Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics. …

… The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised”. …

… The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation. …

… These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.”

• George Monbiot’s How Did We Get into This Mess?

extracts from
http://gu.com/p/4tbfb

“The planning and delivery potential of LEPs” – Royal Town Planning Institute briefing

…”LEPs need to keep their private sector representation under review, and strengthen their relationship with local business organisations and local authority economic development teams, to ensure that plans and priorities reflect local business and interests. …

… LEPs should assess the social and environmental implications of decisions as part of their project appraisal processes. …

… The Local Growth Deals that have been agreed focus on transport and infrastructure aimed at unlocking employment and housing development. These appear quite generic in nature, with only a relatively small proportion of projects directed towards supporting priority growth sectors. Funding is also focused on principal urban areas and main transportation corridors. The resources secured and allocated by LEPs are being directed more towards areas of opportunity rather than need. …

… The relationship between local authorities and LEPs appears to be led at a corporate level and is largely resourced from economic development teams of upper tier authorities. There is little direct involvement of local authority planners with the work of LEPs and their awareness of LEPs’ activities is typically low (the exception is the West of England LEP, where the West of England Partnership has helped to bring forward additional joint working). …

… From the perspective of local planning authorities, LEPs are not seen as having a significant role to play in sustainable development given their clear remit around local economic growth. This stands in contrast to the work of the former South West RDA, which had a significant focus on environmental and social dimensions. …”

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1733440/rtpi_research_briefing_-_local_enterprise_partnerships_in_the_south_west_18_march_2016.pdf

CPRE on land banking

“… Now is the time to get tough with the people in whose interest it is to ensure that just enough houses, and no more, get built each year to maintain healthy rises in property prices – a balancing act that is all about carefully failing to actually meet housing need.

Serious thought now needs to be given to incentivising developers to actually build houses. CPRE would suggest:

the granting of planning permission should be tied to a contract with the developer that determines the rate at which homes will be built;

failure to comply with the contract (or, in the absence of a contract, failure to construct homes at a reasonable rate) could lead to measures such as:

financial penalties on the developer; and/or

revocation of the developer’s right to build all or part of the outstanding planning permission, and delegation of that right to competing developers, including custom- and self-builders.

Then the Government might actually pass the test to make sure more houses are being built – and in the right places.”

http://www.cpre.org.uk/magazine/opinion/item/4269-stand-and-deliver

How to become a “high achiever” the Alan Duncan MP way

“The fees office began insisting that MPs provide documentation to prove that they have a mortgage only in 2003. In the last six years, Mr Duncan has claimed £127,658 under the second home allowance – £126 short of the maximum. Mr Duncan is rich thanks to his career as an oil trader before his election as an MP.

He worked with Marc Rich, the disgraced commodities trader, and has maintained his connections with the energy industry. He declares that he still owns Harcourt Consultants, which advises on oil and gas matters. Last year, it emerged that Mr Duncan’s private office was being funded by donations from Ian Taylor, the chairman of Vitol, a controversial oil company. Mr Duncan was shadow business secretary with responsibility for energy policy at the time. He later declared the funding in the register of MPs’ interests.

In the 1990s, Vitol paid $1 million to Arkan, the Serbian war criminal, to act as a “fixer” on a deal in Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia that had collapsed. In 2007, the company was fined over the oil-for-food scandal. Vitol pleaded guilty to larceny in a New York court and paid $13million to the Iraqi people in restitution.

Mr Duncan’s main home in Westminster has also attracted controversy in the past.

Mr Duncan bought his first house on the street in 1986 and lent it to John Major as the base for his leadership campaign. In 1992, Mr Duncan was elected and was soon made a minister under John Major.Within weeks it emerged that he had lent his elderly next door neighbour money so that he could buy his home under the right-to-buy legislation.

The neighbour bought the 18th century council house at a significant discount and sold it to Mr Duncan just over three years later. In the ensuing furore, Mr Duncan resigned from his ministerial position.
He then combined the two properties into one. Mr Duncan said yesterday: “It was me who raised the issue of gardening costs with the fees office. “Although it was a legitimate claim, we agreed that it might be seen as too large a single item and therefore I did not claim it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5304976/Alan-Duncan-claimed-thousands-for-gardening-MPs-expenses.html

New book lifts lid on what it is like to be a council officer

“Local government worker ROB TAPE decided to write a book based on the experiences of his council work career. He called it Sorry, It’s Not My Department. …

… Response to the book to date has been mixed. The public seem to actually quite like it and are positive about the messages it contains. On the other hand, councillors and council managers seem to be somewhat quieter. For example after sending information to more than 10,000 councillors across the country, most – including all 70 of Croydon’s councillors – have ignored my correspondence entirely.

That being said the number of independent and smaller party councillors who have been in touch has been impressively high in comparison to those from the main two parties. Read into that what you will.

But given that it is the public who deserve a clearer picture about council management, it is the public that I want to read the book.”

https://insidecroydon.com/2016/04/12/whistleblowers-book-ignored-by-all-croydons-councillors/

Failed Green Deal scheme cost £17,000 for every household that signed up

“Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that signed up to the Government’s failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme, which was launched in 2013 with the intention of upgrading Britain’s entire housing stock, a damning National Audit Office report found.

The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans to fund the cost of installing measures such as insulation or double glazing, with the cost paid back out of the resulting savings on their energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just 14,000 households signed up, taking out loans worth just £50 million – on average less than £3,600 each.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/failed-green-deal-scheme-cost-17000-for-every-household-that-sig/

Devon and Somerset Devolution: a brief primer

By Georgina Allen, South Devon Watch, Facebook

“Devon and Somerset are in the middle of a Devolution process.

The word Devolution sounds as though it will increase and support local democracy, but in fact the opposite is true. What we are experiencing looks more and more like the privatisation of local authorities and local democracy – our devolution bid has been written and is being led by a group called the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, or the HoSWLEP for short.

This is a quango made up mainly of business men, a couple of women and a few councillors. The business people are primarily property developers, construction CEOs and arms manufacturers. There are 24 of them and they are self-appointed, un-transparent, unaccountable and hold their meetings in secret. They publish minutes, but these are so opaque as to make them pointless. These people have written a bid for the future of Devon and Somerset, which is full of grandiose aspirations for growth.

They want to create 123,000 jobs, build business parks and growth hubs and most worryingly 179,000 houses.

They have no public mandate for this other than the fact that all our local councils have signed up to this bid.

Many local councillors have publicly stated that they are very unhappy with the way the devolution bid is shaping up. In the South Hams, the leader of the council said that they had been coerced into signing up. When questioned further about this, he explained by saying that councils had had their budgets slashed to such a point that they could hardly function.

The government has taken money away from councils and given it to the LEP, unless local councils sign up to the Devolution Bid, they will not get this funding. A simple privatisation practice, but a very effective one. With councils forced to sign up, the LEP have the illusion of a public mandate. There has been incredibly little press about the LEP and they have not consulted with the public, this Bid is going on behind closed doors and is therefore, very concerning.

Where housing is concerned – how did the LEP come up with the figure of 179,000 houses?

This is not based on any known survey. There is no mention of social, affordable or sustainable housing in the bid, just an enormous amount of market housing the LEP want to build.

As the board is mainly made up of developers this raises the question of conflict of interest, which the LEP acknowledge, but which has not stopped them from making the Devolution Bid almost entirely about growth. There is little to no mention of farming, the environment, tourism, all the industries that are most important down here, instead the Bid is about building and growth hubs and IT. It sounds more like a Bid for a northern powerhouse than it does the rural west country.

Most of the growth projections described in the Bid are reliant on Hinkley C going ahead. As there are very real worries about the viability of this, so there should be questions raised about the LEP, who are lacking a plan B. Councillors, MPs, the National Audit Office and many others are becoming increasingly concerned about the process of devolution and the LEP themselves and as a local person, I am also worried at seeing local issues like planning being passed to a quango of business people, who have financial interests in pushing the type of development that is least needed down here.”

Comment: “Hugo Swire donor linked to Panama Papers”

… so it is interesting to note that a businessman who funds East Devon MP Hugo Swire has been linked to a company set up in an offshore tax haven.

The MP received a £5,000 donation from a company owned by the head of the family-owned JCB group, Anthony Bamford. In the register of MPs’ interests, Mr Swire declares the donation from JCB Research, based at Uttoxeter, Staffordshire. The company is used as a vehicle for political donations, and director Lord Bamford is one of the Tory Party’s biggest donors. It has emerged he was the sole shareholder in a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.

He dissolved the company called Casper Ltd in 2012, according to documents from the Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca seen by The Guardian, one of the media outlets studying the leaked Panama Papers. …

… There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Lord Bamford or Mr Swire. …

… Lord Bamford is believed to have given the Conservatives more than £4m personally and through JCB companies.

Old Etonian Mr Swire, 56, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, which comes with a salary of £98,740, also lists donations of:

£3,000 from his relative Sir Adrian Swire, a billionaire businessman and former chairman of the Swire Group, a global transport and trading conglomerate with major interests in the Far East;

£3,000 from John Lewis OBE, a director of the company Photo-Me International, of which Mr Swire was a director from June 2005 to May 2010.

The Panama Papers are a cache of 11.5 million leaked records from law firm Mossack Fonseca exposing the financial dealings of the wealthy.

Mossack Fonseca said the firm had no control of how its clients might use offshore vehicles created for them.

It is right that elected members of Parliament are transparent about their financial affairs, particularly members of the government which formulates tax law. And it is right that they are held to account through questions from the media on behalf of the electorate, and through the ballot box when the time comes.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Comment-Devon-MP-s-donor-linked-Panama-Papers/story-29111371-detail/story.html

The 1% and why they pay most tax – nailed!

Following on from Hugo Swire telling us the top 1% (of which he is almost certainly a member) pay 27% of tax, a comment on South Devon Watch Facebook page:

The only reason the 1% pay 27% of all income tax take is because they don’t pay their workers enough for them to have to pay any tax. All those part-time/zero hours workers on the minimum wage. Sanctimonious meretricious b*****d.”

Not to mention if that 1% paid ALL their taxes we might still have a proper, functioning national health service AND no potholes!

We are NOT in it together and the 99% know it.

Neil Parish gets pompous (and evasive) about his tax affairs too

Note: MP Mel Stride represents a small part of the East Devon area. Mr Parish was an MEP from 1999 to 2007.

THREE out of four Devon MPs would not answer questions about wjhether they have benefited from offshore accounts, the Echo can reveal.

Hugo Swire, Neil Parish and Mel Stride chose not to respond to questions from the Echo about their tax affairs.

It comes after leaked documents showed politicians, footballers and celebrities had benefited from offshore investments designed to avoid UK taxes. Following calls for greater transparency amongst politicians, the Echo asked the MPs if they had ever used offshore accounts and whether they were prepared to publish their tax returns.

But Mr Swire, whose family was listed at 42 in the most recent Sunday Times Rich List, mounted robust defence of MPs’ right to keep their tax affairs private, which the Echo is publishing in full [see Owl’s post below for Swire’s letter].

His family’s business, which owns a stake in Cathay Pacific, has scores of subsidiaries operating from Panama, Bermuda and the British Virgin Isles.

A county councillor has criticised the 56-year-old foreign office minister for failing to answer the questions posed to him and said he should reveal his tax affairs.

Councillor Claire Wright, who represents Ottery St Mary Rural, said: “Hugo needs to be open and transparent about whether he has offshore investments or not.”

Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP for Exeter, was the only politician in the Echo’s circulation area to respond to all five questions.

He answered “no” to questions one, two and three, meaning he and his family to the best of his knowledge had not benefited from any offshore investments.

Mr Bradshaw said: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I have no problem with MPs who, after all, make the laws, being required to publish their tax returns and perhaps the same should apply to our tax-exiled newspaper proprietors too.”

Meanwhile an assistant to Mel Stride, MP for Central Devon, said he was not prepared to make a statement on whether Mr Stride had benefited from offshore accounts at the moment.

The assistant said: “All I can state is he has no offshore trusts.”

The office for Neil Parish, MP for Tiverton and Honiton, did not respond to any of the questions, but came back with the following statement.

Mr Parish said: “This Conservative Government has done more than any other Government to close tax loopholes, a move which I welcome and I voted in favour of these measures.

“All of the items where I have a pecuniary interest have been registered in the Register of Members’ Interest which can be found online.”

Cllr Wright, however, said she believed MPs should be open following the scandal.

She said: “Tax avoidance has been a growing public concern and after the release of the Panama papers, it has reached a point where it is a top story on the news every day.”

“It is beholden on every MP to be open and transparent. They are in a position of public trust if they do have money in off-shore accounts,” Cllr Wright said.

“Hugo is a government minister and as the government make attempts to try and tighten up tax avoidance, the public needs to have confidence in its MPs so we know that they are practicing what they preach.”

Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, however said he thought it would be unfair for MPs to have to publish their tax returns.

He said: “David Cameron made a rod for his own back by moralising about the legal tax arrangements of others in the past and was clearly clumsy in his handling of questions about the Panama papers.

“But it would be unfair to start forcing politicians into publishing their tax returns. MPs already have to declare external sources of income, significant shareholdings and so on in the publicly-available Register of Members’ Financial Interests but enforced publication of full tax returns would be an undue invasion of privacy.

“Our politicians’ energy would be far better spent simplifying our labyrinthine tax code instead of pontificating about the tax arrangements of those abiding by the very laws which they have written.”

Our questions

The questions put to the four Devon MPs were:

1. Have you used a tax haven, tax incentive or deliberate means of avoiding tax in the past to your knowledge?

2. To the best of your knowledge has anyone in your immediate family?

3. Have you ever benefited from any offshore investments?

4. Are you prepared to publish your tax return?

5. What are your thoughts on the PM and Chancellor’s connections to the tax havens in Panama?

A letter from East Devon MP Hugo Swire in response to The Echo’s Offshore Tax questions

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/asked-MPs-simple-questions-tax-returns-just/story-29106254-detail/story.html

Hugo Swire’s tax affairs

“This week The Express and Echo went to East Devon MP Hugo Swire requesting answers to four questions sent out to each of the four MPs in the paper’s patch.

The questions put to the four Devon MPs were:

1. Have you used a tax haven, tax incentive or deliberate means of avoiding tax in the past to your knowledge?

2. To the best of your knowledge has anyone in your immediate family?

3. Have you ever benefited from any offshore investments?

4. Are you prepared to publish your tax return?

5. What are your thoughts on the PM and Chancellor’s connections to the tax havens in Panama?

Mr Swire chose not to answer the questions but instead asked us to print the following letter.”

“This media feeding frenzy is distasteful

I have found this media feeding frenzy around the personal tax affairs of the Prime Minister somewhat distasteful, writes East Devon MP Hugo Swire.

What exactly is the accusation? Has our PM done anything illegal? No. Immoral? I don’t think so. He has benefited from his late father’s will.

Is this not one of the most fundamental of human instincts, to help your children, whatever your income bracket? Was he even responsible for his father’s investments? Hardly. Yes, he did benefit from his father’s estate and yes it transpires that some of that money came from a perfectly legal overseas investment vehicle. Knowing the PM as I do, his entire approach to these ‘revelations’ will have been to protect his late father, his family (who have not chosen to be in the public eye) and importantly his widowed mother who is very much alive. We can all debate as to what he should have said and when but I think most of us would have had similar instincts.

Besides people who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones. When Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell called on the PM to answer if he had “benefitted directly or indirectly” from offshore funds he might have forgotten that £14,000 of his own pension, which he gets a year from his Westminster City Council, was in 2014 invested with Longview, an active global equity manager, that is based, yes, you have guessed it, offshore in Guernsey. McDonnell has been quoted as saying: “There has been one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us,” which is a bit rich coming from him!

Now as a reaction – I would argue an overreaction – the PM has published his Tax Return, and the Chancellor has followed suit. I think this creates a difficult precedent. Is this the moment that people with private means, self made or otherwise, turn their backs on public life? And where does it stop? Do we finally get to see the tax returns of local councillors, BBC presenters, doctors even, after all they are funded by the taxpayer as well? And while we are at it why don’t we demand to see the tax affairs of those who influence public life, journalists, multi millionaire newspaper editors like Paul Dacre of the Mail, and newspaper proprietors like the Barclay brothers and Lord Rothermere.

The hypocrisy of the Guardian, the BBC and the Mirror Group (owners of the Express & Echo) is also worth noting, all of whom have used elaborate measures to minimise their tax liabilities, as have the unions. Can we see their tax returns? If we are going to have them then let’s have them all. And then no doubt in a sanctimonious way we can all condemn those with an income or savings or investments worth over a certain amount and ‘celebrate’ those who earn far less.

Because the logical extension of this argument is that by definition there is something wrong with the rich. Why don’t we conveniently forget – as some do – that the richest 1 per cent in Britain today pay 27 per cent of all income tax, while the top 10 per cent pay well over half, at 55 per cent. Without their effort and enterprise of course, a huge burden would fall on the 12 percent of workers who pay no income tax at all, while the welfare state would collapse.

But let’s anyway smash the wealth creators who employ us all and fund our public services. Let’s drop this terrible idea that we want to give a leg up in life to our children after we die and take away a key driving force of wealth creation. Let’s all join Momentum and ride with the hounds of class warfare and demonstrate against globalisation, GM crops and Trident while we are at it. Let’s make sure that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn achieve the highest office in the land and squander all our hard earned cash. Wouldn’t we all feel smug and so much better as a result?”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/8203-letter-East-Devon-MP-Hugo-Swire-response/story-29105022-detail/story.html

So, Hugo, back to the four questions ….

There truly is one law for the rich and another for the poor

“David Cameron was confronted in the Commons on Wednesday with figures showing that thousands more government inspectors are employed to tackle benefits fraud than deal with tax evasion by the wealthiest UK residents.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party’s leader in Westminster, asked the prime minister why 3,250 department of work and pensions (DWP) staff have been assigned to investigate welfare fraud, while 300 specialise in dealing with the rich.

“Surely we should care equally about people abusing the tax system and those abusing the benefit system?” Robertson asked during prime minister’s questions. “Why has this government had ten times more staff dealing often with the poorest in society abusing benefits than with the super-rich evading their taxes?”

In fact the government confirmed on Wednesday that the ranks of DWP benefits investigators have swelled to 3,700 – a higher number than the one quoted by Robertson, and up from 2,600 in February last year.

That compares with 700 people who work at HM Revenue and Customs in the two units whose job it is to investigate the wealthiest 500,000 people living in the UK.

David Cameron was jeered when he admitted the figures cited by Robertson would need to be examined, but retorted “they sound to me entirely bogus”. He added: “The predominant job of the DWP is to make sure that people receive their benefits. The predominant job of HMRC is to make sure people pay their taxes”.

Benefits fraud costs the government £1.3bn a year, according to official statistics, while the gap between tax owed and tax paid is put at £34bn a year by officials.”

http://gu.com/p/4tb4b

“Politicians don’t know the price of milk – but they do know how to set up a shell company”

“… In the old days, courtiers aped the style of the monarch. Modern politicians aspire to be like today’s rulers – our corporate overlords. If you spend a sizeable chunk of your career making sure corporations can take their money offshore, and hope to work for those companies later in your career with some title like Non-Executive Director Of Thanks For All The Favours, and if corporations actively court political influence through massive lobbying operations, then you will end up with a certain level of symbiosis. …

… In the end, as a senior politician having spent a career in what is the PR wing of corporatism, offshore tax arrangements might well be one of the few things you know anything about. I mean that quite literally. Politics is full of people who don’t know the price of a pint of milk but do understand the incorporation of a shell company. Why wouldn’t they have a trust in Panama?

Corporations may hire celebrity spokesmodels, personify themselves as mascots, and in the US, demand that they have the constitutional rights of people, but they are not people. They are blueprints for making money, and they don’t address their social obligations because they don’t care. I suspect before long we’ll see corporations donating to space exploration in the hope that they’ll be able to take advantage of a zero per cent tax rate by screwing their “Company Headquarters” plaques to the surface of the moon. In a decade, it’ll be covered with so much tessellating brass, it’ll shimmer like a distant glitterball through the gaps in the roofs of their employees’ shacks.

http://gu.com/p/4t9n2

“Tory MP Stewart Jackson Says Academies Plan Is ‘Rushed, Ill-Thought Out And Flawed’ “

“A Tory MP has criticised the Government’s plan to turn all schools in to academies, labelling the plan “rushed, ill-thought out and flawed”.

Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, said he was willing to defy the party line as the reform was a “million miles from what a Conservative Party in office should be doing”.

His comments come as Labour today forces a vote in the Commons on the plan announced by Chancellor George Osborne in his Budget last month.

Jackson’s withering criticism of the “compulsory academisation” of primary and secondary schools underlines growing unease among some Tory backbenchers at the flagship plan being taken forward by Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan.

Writing in a column for his local newspaper the Peterborough Telegraph, seen by HuffPost UK, the MP argues the move is a “recipe for upheaval as well as muddle and costly confusion” and that there is “no evidence (as yet)” that the move will improve schools.

He says: “Do we really believe that remote civil servants or ‘local’ Regional Schools Commissioners will be adequate substitutes for the real local knowledge, expertise, passion, teamwork, skills and shared history of local councillors, dedicated education officers and parents ‘on the ground?’

“The difference is obvious: at least the latter are accountable to their electorate, whilst the former are accountable only to their hierarchy – namely the Secretary of State, rather than pupils, parents, teachers or governors.”

The MP goes on that the plan will risks “squashing local choice, differentiation and expertise” and “rightly irritates local councillors”.

In recognition of many Tories feeling ill at ease with state control, he argues: “It’s because I’m a Conservative that I can see that something like this is a million miles from what a Conservative Party in office should be doing.”

Meanwhile, one senior Tory told HuffPost UK: “I don’t believe in ‘compulsory freedom’. There’s lots of us who aren’t comfortable with this.”

Under the reform, all state schools must become academies by 2020 or have plans to do so by 2022.

Jackson questions whether academy chains – so-called Multi Academy Trusts that run more than one school – can “run and turnaround not just high performing schools but those which are struggling”, and references the troubles of the Voyager academy in his constituency.

He continues the prospect of “nationalising” education and handing down a “top down system” to a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government “fills me with horror”.

“I will not be supporting this rushed, ill thought out and flawed policy and I suspect the government will dump it before too long,” Jackson finishes.

Labour today leads an Opposition Day debate having tabled a motion claiming there is “no evidence that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement”. The vote is not binding but could prove embarrassing for the Government.

Academies are state-controlled but free of local authority control.

For any school that fails to have a plan in place, the Government will take on radical new powers to intervene and ensure academy conversion takes place.

Unions have hit out at the Government was moving to “undo over 50 years of comprehensive public education at a stroke”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/schools-academies-labour_uk_570e1011e4b01711c612ab4a

Buy your town’s community hospital from the NHS or else …

From the blog of Claire Wright, DCC Independent Councillor:

Yesterday’s BBC Good Morning Devon programme yesterday morning covered the potential fallout of NHS Property Services taking over 12 community hospitals in Devon, in June.

The community hospitals that will transfer ownership to NHS Property Services include: Axminster, Budleigh Salterton, Crediton, Exeter Community Hospital (Whipton), Exmouth, Honiton, Moretonhampstead, Okehampton, Ottery St Mary, Seaton, Sidmouth and Tiverton.

Ottery Hospital’s League of Friends members Adrian Rutter and David Roberts were interviewed expressing serious concern about the government owned company charging local NHS organisations commercial rents after acquiring them – and the possibility of the buildings being sold off if the NHS cannot afford the rents.

However, Hugo Swire seemed (after claiming such concerns were alarmist – I also wrote to him last week about this very issue) – to dismiss the idea, instead suggesting that it was up to the community to take out a lease on the buildings.

This is unbelievable. Ottery’s community raised around £250,000 to help fund a new hospital building just 20 years ago. Now the government is helping themselves to what they see as a profitable asset, charging the local NHS huge rents … and the solution… says our MP – is for the community to pay for a long term lease?

Just what planet does Mr Swire live on?

It is Mr Swire’s government that is perpetrating this plan which amounts to blatant theft and extortion. As a government minister he tells us he has considerable influence with other ministers and secretaries of state. It’s about time he used this influence to protect our precious hospitals for future generations.

Here’s the interview. Tune in at 39 mins to hear Adrian Rutter and David Roberts interview which precedes Mr Swire’s at 42 minutes – link – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03nx07c

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/hugo_swire_on_ottery_hospital_sell_off_risk_let_the_community_take_out_a_le

“More than half of MPs want to be able to spend more on their taxpayer-funded credit cards”

“More than half of MPs want to be able to spend more on their taxpayer-funded credit cards, with scores demanding the right to use them to pay for food and drinks.

MPs can currently spend a maximum of £1,000 on a single transaction and a total of £4,000 each month on the credit card.

However, when question by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, as many as 51 per cent of MPs said they wanted looser rules on use of direct payment and charge cards.

Ipsa issues MPs with the cards to pay for a variety of items such as travel, accommodation and stationery.

The politicians then have to prove the spending was allowed within the month, or they build up debts to the watchdog.

The sums are recouped by suspending the cards and not paying out valid expenses claims, or in installments from the MP’s salary.

MPs have said they believe food and drink should to be reintroduced as an allowance on the card and that they should be allowed to use the cards when travelling on public transport in London.

It comes after more than a dozen MPs had their Commons credit cards blocked last month after running up expenses debts of up to £27,000.

Five SNP politicians – including Westminster leader Angus Robertson and his deputy Stewart Hosie – were among those subject to action by the watchdog.

The fresh calls were made in response to a 2015 survey of politicians and their staff by the expenses watchdog, which found that 34 per cent of MPs chose not to submit a claim because they were “concerned about the claim being published”.

Overall, Ipsa received 312 responses, of which 44 were MPs, 113 were MP proxies – nominated to act on behalf of an MP – and 155 members of staff.

The report states: “There are some clear signs that MPs, their proxies, and their staff think that there have been many improvements in the support and services that we offer, but, of course, there remains more for us to do.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/more-than-half-of-mps-want-to-be-able-to-spend-more-on-their-tax/