Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

“Peer who never spoke in Lords last year claims £50,000 expenses””

“A Labour peer claimed almost £50,000 in attendance and travel expenses covering every single day the House of Lords was sitting last year, despite never speaking or asking any written questions, a Guardian investigation reveals.

The former trade union general secretary David Brookman was among dozens of other lords and baronesses who never took part in a single debate, while almost a third of the 800 peers barely participated in parliamentary business over a 12-month period despite costing almost £3.2m in allowances.

The details have emerged from a new analysis of public data that will raise fresh questions about the size and effectiveness of the Lords, and the funds that can be claimed by those who fail to regularly contribute.

The findings show:

Eighty-eight peers – about one in nine – never spoke, held a government post or participated in a committee at all.

Forty-six peers did not register a single vote, including on Brexit, sit on a committee or hold a post. One peer claimed £25,000 without voting, while another claimed £41,000 but only voted once.

More than 270 peers claimed more than £40,000 in allowances, with two claiming more than £70,000.

The former Lords speaker Frances D’Souza, a long-term advocate of reform, said the findings corroborated “what everyone suspects is going on”, and that a minority of peers risked discrediting the hard work of their colleagues.

“There’s clearly a need to reduce numbers,” Lady D’Souza said, adding that the research “clearly shows there are people who are attending the House of Lords who are not contributing, and therefore they are simply redundant”.

The Guardian’s analysis covers the attendance, participation and allowances claims of 785 lords serving for a full year between 2017 and 2018. They comprise 244 Conservatives, 196 Labour and 97 Liberal Democrats, as well as 248 crossbench peers and various others.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/30/labour-peer-never-spoke-house-of-lords-claims-50000-expenses?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Estate rentcharges, Greater Exeter, Housing (local), Sustainability

The new “sustainable” villages – beware estate rentcharges

Cranbrook has not recovered from the arrangenent where developers imposed charges on residents of their estates for such things as gardening and maintenance. In the end, the town council took over these charges and spread them over ALL residents, many of whom were naturally upset at extra charges they had never signed up for.

“Estate rent charges” – another warning on new-builds such as those in Cranbrook

Now, the new (brutalist architecture) estate developer in Exeter says it will severely restrict parking by having only 185 car parking spaces for 400 homes and residents will need permits to use the spaces.

BUT enforcement of these parking restrictions will be done by “a specialist management company which will patrol the site to ensure vehicles are parked within dedicated spaces and to ensure that non-residents aren’t using the site”.

And who will pay these charges? Just those who have parking spaces or ALL residents? And who will control escalation of the charges?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Exmouth, Hugo Swire

Comments

1 Comment

Swire says Exmouth deserves “a better museum” …

[corrected to show Exmouth Museum has a £1 entrance fee]

… and coincidentally, of course, thinks it should be on the seafront and incorporated into a tourist attraction that people pay a lot for. Exmouth Myseum charges £1 entry fee.

One must remember that Swire Swire was sacked in the July 2007 Conservative re-shuffle for suggesting his party would scrap free museum entry …

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

Ever the privatiser!

Sounds something like the Seaton Jurassic Centre, where entry is from £8 (senior) to £22 for 2 adults and 2 children (entry for one year).

“Sir Hugo said Exmouth ‘deserves a better museum’ and thinks there is a place for it on the seafront.

He said: “That might be somewhere on the Queen’s Drive by developing a visitor centre which could educate people on the Jurassic Coast. …”

https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/east-devon-mp-invited-to-exmouth-museum-1-6079409

Currently Exmouth Myseum is free. Seaton Jurassic is run by Devon Wildlife Trust, and the cost of entry at present is anywhere from £8 (senior) to £22 for a family of 2 adults and 2 children.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Economy, Growth Strategy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Those optimistic “growth” figures from our LEP look even more unlikely

“Calling an organisation the “UK 2070 Commission” is not without its risks. Who cares what happens that far out?

But that, in a sense, is the point. The commission, set up to investigate Britain’s “marked regional inequalities”, publishes its first report today. And, as its chairman Lord Kerslake puts it: “If you want to understand what happens in economics, you need to look 50 years back and 50 years out.” Indeed, as the commission notes: “The reference to 2070 is an explicit recognition that the timescales for successful city and regional development are often very long, in contrast to the short-termism of political cycles.”

A Brexit-addled government nicely illustrates that — not that it’ll have been any surprise to Lord Kerslake, the ex-head of the home civil service. And in these distracted times, the report is doubly welcome. It kills the myth that inequality is not on the rise and helps to explain Brexit — or at least the disparity between Remainer London and the Brexiteer regions.

The report finds London “de-coupling from the rest of the UK”. And to nobody’s benefit. Research from Sheffield University professor Philip McCann finds the “UK is interregionally more unequal” than 28 of the 30 advanced OECD countries, the exceptions being Ireland and Slovakia.

Productivity in the capital is 50 per cent higher than the rest of the UK. Indeed, similar growth between 1992 and 2015 from cities outside London would have added at least “£120 billion to the national economy”. And, on present trends, half of the UK’s future jobs growth will be in London and the South East, which accounts for only 37 per cent of the population.

The effects show up everywhere. Healthy life expectancy in the UK’s poorest regions is “19 years lower”. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found in 2016 that dealing with the effects of poverty costs the UK £78 billion a year. And, even then, poor is a relative term. The children’s commissioner for England found that “a child who is poor enough for free school meals in Hackney, one of London’s poorest boroughs, is still three times more likely to go on to university than an equally poor child in Hartlepool”.

No one wins from such imbalances. People and businesses in the North “miss out on the benefits of growth” — forcing more spending on benefits. But those in “overheating” London and the South East find “increasing pressures on living costs and resources”, so reducing “quality of life”. That forces spending on pricey infrastructure, exacerbating the imbalances. Hence Crossrail, a phase-one HS2 skewed to the capital and an environmentally damaging third Heathrow runway.

So, what to do? Well, here the commission suggests a mix of regional devolution and German-style national planning. It points to the eye-popping €1.5 trillion spent post-unification to help to bring east Germany up to speed with the west. For Britain, it proposes an extra £10 billion spend annually for the next 25 years: a fabulous sum equating to 0.5 per cent of GDP. Lord Kerslake says it’s for government to decide whether it would come from borrowings, tax or such things as levies on uplifts in property values.

Yet he reckons “higher regional growth rates would over time offset this cost”. He emphasises, too, that this is just an initial report, seeking feedback. And don’t the divisions over Brexit underline that Britain needs to do something? Waiting until 2070 isn’t an option.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Privatisation, Scrutiny

“Government spends almost £100m on Brexit consultants”

Owl says: When people such as “Failing Grayling” (chaos in all departments he has run, the latest being transport) and Swire’s choice for PM Dominic Raab (the Brexit Minister who didn’t realise how much traffic to and from the EU goes through Dover) in charge – was it money well spent?

And how come these consultants had all the experts and the civil service didn’t?

“… The vast bulk (96%) of the Brexit consultancy expenditure under Cabinet Office arrangements – which accounts for £65m of the £97m total – has so far been handed to six consultancy companies: Deloitte, PA Consulting, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Ernst & Young, Bain & Company and Boston Consulting Group.

Five departments: the Cabinet Office, Home Office, Border Delivery Group, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, account for the majority of spending via the Cabinet Office. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/government-spends-almost-100m-brexit-consultants

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire

Swire’s choice for PM says he’s “probably not a feminist”

Owl says: Trust me, Dominic – if you’re not sure then you DEFINITELY aren’t one.

You ok with that, Tory ladies?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dominic-raab-feminist_uk_5ceedcc5e4b0508c91e10a46

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Education (local), NHS (local), Privatisation

Swire’s choice for PM : wants all schools and NHS run by private companies for profit

Should one be judged by the company one keeps?

“Tory leadership hopeful Dominic Raab has been described as more rightwing than Margaret Thatcher over his proposal to let state schools be run by profit-making companies

Raab, who is second favourite in the race to be the next prime minister, made the case for privately run state schools in 2013 and again in 2014, saying the government should open up the education system for companies to make money.

The idea is one of a number of rightwing proposals put forward by Raab in pamphlets over the years. The former Brexit secretary has also suggested encouraging more private companies into the NHS by giving them tax breaks or paying them premiums, and scrapping the 45% top rate of income tax, instead having a basic rate at 15% and a higher rate at 35%.

Asked whether Rabb still endorsed the idea of letting companies run state schools, his spokesman did not rule out the proposal, saying: “Dominic has set out his priorities to fight for a fairer Britain – a fairer deal for workers by cutting taxes for those on low and middle incomes, a fairer society by boosting apprenticeships and getting a fairer deal from Brussels.”

In his 2013 paper Capitalism for the Little Guy, Raab suggested the government should “lift the bar on profit-making companies running academies and free schools”, subject to a minimum of 50% of profits being reinvested into the school. At present academies and free schools cannot be run for profit.

Raab wrote that opening up schools to profit-making companies could help to raise capital investment for education at a time when funding from central government was under pressure, arguing that such a move would help raise standards.

He acknowledged there was an “understandable sensitivity of introducing the profit motive into schooling”, suggesting that as well as the 50% profit limit on, dividends should only be paid if educational performance standards were met and that there should be a bar on the sale for commercial gain of school assets purchased with public money. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/dominic-raab-more-rightwing-on-education-than-thatcher-tory-private-sector-state-schools-profit?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Local Government Finance, Privatisation

“Why councils are bringing millions of pounds worth of services back in-house”

“Chris Morgan got a job as an electrician repairing council houses in Stoke-on-Trent just over five years ago. Although he enjoyed his job, Morgan, 36, says he did not always feel he could raise issues with his line manager. “Our supervisors weren’t always in the trade we were in,” he says. The city council had outsourced its housing repairs service to Kier group in 2008. But since the council brought the work in-house last year, Morgan says he feels happier. “I know my supervisor knows what I’m on about. It makes me more confident,” he says. “We have had extra talks, health and safety training. They have put in a new canteen and showers, so the facilities are better too.” And with a £1,000 pay rise, plus an extra £500 for doing asbestos work, Morgan is also a bit better off.

Now all repairs, maintenance and home improvements to the council’s housing stock, as well as public building maintenance, are in-house.

A report by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) published today, shows that Stoke is far from unusual, with 77% of UK councils planning to bring services back in-house this year. And the report calculates that between 2016 and 2018, at least 220 local government contracts have been brought back into council control.

Labour ‘will ban’ outsourcing of public services to private firms.

Outsourcing began under Margaret Thatcher with compulsory competitive tendering back in the 1980s and was embraced wholeheartely by New Labour. Now attitudes seem to be hardening against contracting out. “What we are seeing is a 40-year experiment in public service delivery being put under the microscope,” says Tom Sasse, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government.

The Labour party has pledged that under a Labour government all frontline services would be provided by the public sector, from railways to social care. Even the Conservative government has been forced to look again at outsourcing, renationalising probation services after outsourcing them disastrously failed. And in the NHS, the cervical cancer screening programme for England will be brought back into the health service later this year, after Capita failed to send more than 40,000 women screening invitations and reminder letters to have a smear test.

“A catalogue of failure has shown that private providers have struggled to generate profit and deliver services of the standards that the community expects,” says Paul Evans, director of NHS Support Federation.

“The rise in insourcing shows that commissioners are being forced to recognise this. Not all contracts display problems, but experience now shows that the risk is high.’

For many public sector bodies, bringing services back in-house is increasingly a pragmatic way to cut costs and improve quality. “On its own, it is not an absolute panacea, but there are significant advantages to bringing services back in-house,” says John Tizard, a former Capita executive and now a strategic adviser on public services.

According to today’s report, 78% of local authorities believe insourcing gives them more flexibility, two-thirds say it also saves money, and more than half say it has improved the quality of the service while simplifying how it is managed.

“Insourcing allows councils to regain control over local services,” says Mo Baines, head of communication and coordination at APSE and author of the APSE report. “Fragmented service delivery through outsourced contracts has failed to deliver on price and quality. It is no longer a viable option.”

Sasse adds: “In the 1980s, there were typically 20% cost savings by outsourcing services like waste collection, but those efficiencies have now been made.”

Steven Griggs, professor of public policy at the local governance research centre at De Montfort University, says: “In the context of austerity, insourcing offers reductions in management costs that can be used to fund frontline services. If you are locked into long-term contracts, then inevitably cuts will fall on remaining services.”

Some councils have opted to insource because the provider walked away from the contract. In Scotland, Highlands council brought cleaning public lavatories back in-house in 2017 after the provider said it wished to terminate the contract because it was no longer commercially viable without increasing the contract value by just under £450,000: a 31% increase.

Griggs says councils are also finding other benefits. “Insourcing builds in-house capacity, facilitates the joining up of services, shores up financial flexibility, keeps the public pound in the local economy and provides opportunities to work with small- and medium-sized businesses to strengthen local supply chains.”

And in some cases it can generate much needed revenue.

In Stoke, the council created a wholly owned trading company, Unitas, to allow the housing repair team to bid for other contracts and generate profits. As housing revenue grant is ringfenced, any surpluses or profits made by the council have to be spent within that budget. But by creating the trading company, any profits could go back to the council’s general fund.

“Last year we returned £4.6m to the council and provided an improved service,” says Steve Wilson, operations director of Unitas. The company has won contracts worth £2m to refurbish civic and other local buildings. It is also hoping to bid for maintenance work with other housing providers. “Rather than line shareholders’ pockets, this approach has generated income for the council, improved customer service and staff morale,” says Carl Brazier, director of housing and customer services at Stoke city council. …

In Cheshire, Halton borough council has saved £750,000 a year by bringing its three leisure centres back in-house, while Nottingham has saved £500,000 annually by insourcing maintenance of its civic buildings and cut the cost of staff catering by 17% by bringing it back in-house.

One of the biggest insourcing programmes has been in the London borough of Islington. Following its 2011 fairness commission, the council has brought back about £380m of services, helping to improve the pay and conditions of 1,200 frontline staff and generating net savings of about £14m for the council. Services brought back in-house include building cleaning; housing repairs and maintenance; waste and recycling; grounds maintenance; and temporary accommodation.

Today’s report argues that the economic case for insourcing means all councils should consider it. “In an age of austerity, councils can no longer afford outsourcing failures. Most can deliver quality services at a better price and without sacrificing the workforce on the altar of the lowest bidder.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/29/bringing-services-back-in-house-is-good-councils?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Austerity cuts, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

“English councils warned about use of reserve cash”

Somerset, which oversees funds being spent by our Local Enterprise Partnership, is one of the councils mentioned in this BBC article.

“Some councils in England have been warned they risk running out of cash reserves if recent spending continues.

Analysis by the BBC has identified 11 authorities the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (Cipfa) said would have “fully exhausted” reserves within four years unless they topped them up.

The Local Government Association said councils faced “systemic underfunding”.

The government said councils were responsible for managing their funds.
Councils have faced cuts to their government funding and rising demand for services such as social care, while MPs have warned children’s services are at “breaking point”.

Cash reserves – money held back for specific projects or emergencies, such as flooding – are seen as a measure of financial security.

Between them the 152 major councils in England had £14bn in reserve in March 2018, £500m more than the year before but £400m less than in 2015.

The BBC analysis of government data follows work by Cipfa, which published a “resilience” index of councils, but stopped short of naming those it warned were depleting reserves the fastest.

The warning was based on the latest data available, comparing reserves as of March 2018 with March 2015.

The analysis reveals which 11 of the 152 major English councils have used so much of their reserves since 2015 that Cipfa said they would run out within four years if spending patterns continued.

The research comes ahead of Wednesday’s Panorama, which reveals the failings of the social care system as the population gets older and more people need help with day to day living. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48280272

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Health and Safety, Housing (local), Inequality

“Kensington Council Made £129m From Selling Property That Could Have Prevented Cost-Cutting At Grenfell”

“Kensington and Chelsea council made £129m from selling property in the years leading up to the Grenfell fire tragedy – money which we can show for the first time could have prevented cost-cutting on the tower’s renovation works.

An investigation by HuffPost UK, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the BBC Local Democracy Reporting Service can reveal the property deals overseen by senior officers and the council’s cabinet in the run up to the Grenfell disaster.

Evidence shows one of these deals was directly linked to the financing of the Grenfell Tower renovation and our investigation reveals that the council had far greater power over its funding of the works than it has previously admitted.

The council has previously claimed legal restrictions meant it could only use rental income from local authority housing to pay for renovation works. But this was not the case.

In fact, the council’s own documents show £6m of the Grenfell works was paid for with proceeds from the sale of council property – basement units in Elm Park Gardens in Chelsea.

The government has confirmed to us that councils are free to use money from the sale of property to fund improvements in housing stock.

This new information means the council had a far larger pot of money available to invest in its council housing than it has previously acknowledged – including on Grenfell Tower.

Our investigation also found the council had £37m in the bank, specifically from the sale of property, at the time when funding decisions over Grenfell were being taken.

But in 2014, cuts were made to the budget for building work by the tenant management organisation that was managing the project, including saving £300,000 by using cheaper, more combustible cladding.

The cladding was a key contributor to the speed with which the fire tore through the building on June 14, 2017, killing 72 people and leaving hundreds of families homeless.

The revelations have prompted fury over why spending on the Grenfell works was tight when the council had a significant income stream that could have been used to increase the budget. …”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kensington-chelsea-council-property-sales-grenfell_uk_5ced6003e4b0bbe6e3342f04?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage&guccounter=1

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Tories, Sleaze, Tax avoidance, Transparency

“UK and territories are ‘greatest enabler’ of tax avoidance, study says”

u”The UK and its “corporate tax haven network” is by far the world’s greatest enabler of corporate tax avoidance, research has claimed.

British territories and dependencies made up four of the 10 places that have done the most to “proliferate corporate tax avoidance” on the corporate tax haven index.

The UK ranked 13th on the list, which was published by the Tax Justice Network on Tuesday.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the findings showed the government’s record on tax avoidance was “embarrassing and shameful”.

McDonnell added: “The only way the UK stands out internationally on tax is in leading a race to the bottom in creating tax loopholes and dismantling the tax systems of countries in the global south.

“The rot has to stop. While Tory leadership hopefuls promise tax giveaways for the rich, a Labour government will implement the most comprehensive plan ever seen in the UK to tackle tax avoidance and evasion.”

A government spokesman said tackling tax avoidance was a priority and the UK had “been at the forefront of international action to reform global tax rules”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/28/uk-and-territories-are-greatest-enabler-of-tax-avoidance-study-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire

Swire’s pick for PM gets roasted for leadership video

Hope it wasn’t Swire’s idea!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dominic-raab-fairness-video-goes-viral_uk_5ced40a8e4b0bbe6e333945d?guccounter=1

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), TiggerTories

“Oxfordshire’s Housing and Growth deal at risk after local elections”

Well, not much chance of this here now so many Tories stull continue to have great influence over East Devon and Greater Exeter development:

“THERE is concern a major deal with Government could be scrapped if a council decides it does not want to take part.

All Oxfordshire councils signed up to the £215m Housing and Growth Deal and it was officially agreed in March 2018.

It provides £150m for infrastructure improvements, including to roads and railways, and £60m for affordable housing.

But there is concern within other authorities after the new coalition led by Liberal Democrats and Greens at South Oxfordshire District Council said they planned to review its Local Plan.

Sources within the councils have said there are worries the Government could pull out of the deal if it is delayed. It ripped up a similar plan in Manchester in March.

But Ian Hudspeth, the leader of Oxfordshire County Council, said: “We have got to wait and see what the councils say. It is entirely up to them but having £60m for affordable homes is a major issue to the councils. Losing that would be very upsetting for everyone.

“Everyone needs to be very careful about what they do and the consequences.”

When the Growth Deal was signed, the Government told the councils that they had to submit their Local Plans to an independent inspector by the start of April. They are outlines of where authorities plan to develop until the mid-2030s.

In South Oxfordshire, Lib Dems and Greens are opposed to the plan – although they appear to be against different parts.

It is understood the Greens would rather continue the project to build homes at Chalgrove Airfield and stop development on the Green Belt. But senior Lib Dem David Turner is wholly opposed to building on the airfield. He represents Chalgrove on the council.

Leigh Rawlins, SODC’s newly appointed cabinet member for planning, said the council would undertake a review over the Local Plan as part of ‘mature consideration’ following the election.

He said: “Clearly there has been a huge amount of concern about the Local Plan, the process and how it came together across the district.”

The uncertainty has left some residents furious, who are worried that Neighbourhood Plans they helped put together could be delayed or even scrapped as part of the Local Plan.

Justine Wood, who worked on East Hagbourne’s Neighbourhood Plan, said a delay to the Local Plan could mean speculative development.

She said: “There were 1,200 homes planned for East Hagbourne, which would have quadrupled the size of the village (through speculative development). It would have been catastrophic.

“But if they scrap the Local Plan they will get more than the 28,500 they are objecting to and they will have nothing they can do about it.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government cancelled a £68m deal for affordable housing with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).

GMCA said it would build 227,200 homes until 2034/5 – but then later committed to just 201,000 homes.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17650662.oxfordshires-housing-and-growth-deal-at-risk-after-local-elections/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, EDDC, Housing (local)

“Regulator warns housing stock-owning local authorities of application of consumer standards”

“The Regulator of Social Housing has written to the chief executives of all housing stock-owning local authorities to remind them that the watchdog’s consumer standards – in particular in relation to the health and safety of occupants – apply to them.

The move follows a letter sent by the Regulator after the Grenfell Tower fire to all registered providers of social housing to remind them of their obligations for their tenants’safety under the Regulator of Social Housing’s Consumer standards.

Since that first letter, the watchdog has issued regulatory notices to two local authorities in respect of compliance with the Home Standard (which is one of the consumer standards), and specifically a range of health and safety requirements. …

MacGregor noted that that obligation remained with the local authority where it is the stock-owning body, even if the management has been contracted to another body such as an ALMO.

She then cited an extract from the original letter saying, amongst other things, that meeting health and safety obligations was a primary responsibility for registered providers, and that boards and councillors must ensure that they have proper oversight of all health and safety issues.

The first letter stressed that contracting out delivery of services did not contract out responsibility to meet the requirements of legislation or standards, so providers needed systems to give boards assurance of compliance.

It also said that should any provider find that they have systemic failings in relation to internal control of health and safety, which indicate that they were not in compliance with the Standard, based on the co-regulatory approach, the Regulator expected them to notify it as Regulator and resolve the issues immediately.

Ms MacGregor said her latest letter was “a reminder to local authorities that the consumer standards apply to them and that while we currently only consider information that is referred to us, this does not diminish the obligation on local authorities to comply with the standards.

“Currently, legislation only permits us to take enforcement action where there has been a breach of a consumer standard, and that breach has, or could, cause serious detriment to current or future tenants. As can be seen from our various Consumer Regulation Review publications, we most commonly find breach and serious detriment in relation to the Home Standard.”

She added: “You may wish to seek your own assurance that your authority is complying with the consumer standards.”

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/housing-law/397-housing-news/40654-regulator-warns-housing-stock-owning-local-authorities-of-application-of-consumer-standards

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire

Swire’s choice for PM thinks feminists are ‘obnoxious bigots’

“Dominic Raab has defended his claim that feminists are some of the most obnoxious bigots and that men are getting a raw deal, saying he does not want “double standards” in the debate on equality.

The former Brexit secretary, a leading candidate to be the next prime minister, was challenged on BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show about his comments from 2011, when he said: “From the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal. Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots.”

He stood by the position by saying it was “really important that in the debate on equality we have a consistency and not double standards and hypocrisy …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/26/dominic-raab-defends-calling-feminists-obnoxious-bigots?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality, Poverty, Universal Credit

“Destitute children unlawfully denied support by local councils”

“Local councils are unlawfully denying destitute children support because their parents’ immigration status is under suspicion, the Guardian can reveal.

Families whose immigration status becomes insecure can quickly become destitute because they lose their right to work and access benefits. Such families who have dependent children can seek support under section 17 of the 1989 Children’s Act, which states that local councils have a duty to provide cash or accommodation to ensure a child’s immediate needs are met.

Hundreds of these families have been unlawfully denied this support since 2010 because local authorities have focused on the parents’ immigration background.

Many of the children affected are either British or entitled to British citizenship, and campaigners say it has now become normal practice for them to threaten local authorities with legal action in an effort to ensure a fair assessment. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/26/destitute-children-unlawfully-denied-support-local-councils-immigration-status?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Swire’s choice for PM – a match made in …

Seems like a great fit for Swire!

“If MPs did block Boris, Mr Raab could prove popular with the Tory membership – a group of 160,000 true-bluers who’ll pick from two choices to choose our next PM.

So who is the MP, and why has he stirred controversy?

He sparked fury in 2017 by saying most food bank users are not “languishing in poverty”. When a disability activist told him “people are dying” under Tory austerity, he described her calls for cash as a “childish wish list”.

He branded feminists “obnoxious bigots”. And he put out a pamphlet in 2011 that suggested exempting small firms from minimum wage laws for workers under 21.

Here’s a profile – and 15 things you should probably know.

Former grammar school boy Mr Raab, now 45, was born to a Czech Jewish father who fled to Britain as a refugee before the Second World War.

The Oxford and Cambridge graduate was a City lawyer with Linklaters before joining the Foreign Office in 2000, helping bring war criminals to justice in The Hague.

He once found himself defending Tony Blair from being summoned to the international criminal court while working on the trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

He left the civil service for hard politics in 2006 becoming chief of staff to Tory shadow home secretary David Davis.

He was elected MP for Esher and Walton in 2010 and joined government in 2015, quickly rising through the ranks.

During his time as a junior minister in the Ministry of Justice, Mr Raab tried to get prisoners with sentences of longer than a year deported.

He also led debates against a European Court of Justice decision giving at least some prisoners the right to vote.

In July 2018 he replaced David Davis as Brexit Secretary – probably the most crucial and stressful job in government.

But he lasted just five months in the role, resigning in November 2018 in protest of Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

He stepped down just hours after Theresa May published her 585-page Brexit deal, accusing the Prime Minister of betraying “public trust”.

He lives in Thames Ditton, Surrey, with his wife Erika and two sons Peter and Joshua and his heroes include right-wing US President Ronald Reagan and Gandhi.

15 things you should probably know (see article for details)

1. He’d crash us out with No Deal
2. He didn’t rule out working with Farage
3. He wants MORE government cuts
4. He became Brexit Secretary without realising how important Dover is
5. And he didn’t read the full Good Friday Agreement either
6. He’s raised the idea of a Brexit tax haven
7. He said foodbank users aren’t ‘languishing in poverty’
8. He branded calls for NHS cash a ‘childish wish list’
9. He had some worrying views on workers’ rights
10. He branded feminists ‘obnoxious bigots’
11. He was in a Facebook group calling for NHS privatisation
12. He branded Brits ‘the worst idlers in the world’
13. He got embroiled in a row about housing stats
14. He revealed he had faced a claim of bullying, which he added was ‘false’ and ‘unsubstantiated’
15. And of course, there’s his diary secretary – with her clams about his lunch

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/who-dominic-raab-tory-leadership-12882420

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability

Comments

2 Comments

Why is Owl anonymous?

Owl is currently receiving very frequent emails asking why it is anonymous:

1. To ensure that harrassing and/or threatening emails are not sent to a personal email address – there are already enough of them clogging up the Owl’s email box. Some have been a touch in the scary side.
2. Because, as said before, Owl is legion – contributions come from many sources and many contributors, quite a few of whom wish to remain anonymous (see 1 above).
3. Owl flies away sometimes, when other owls watch over the district.
4. It means people do not make value judgments of person but of content
5. It is not illegal to blog anonymously – although recently Owl has been accused of the illegal act of defamation. (Owl has asked the emailer to be more specific and has promised to publish the reply – as long as it isn’t defamatory).

If condition (1) above was respected, Owl would love to do without anonymity.

Remember, JK Rowling wanted to be anonymous with her Strike books … and the great tradition of lampoonery and Private Eye couldn’t exist without it.

Oh, and Owl will not respond to any more … are you? … you are … emails.

If anyone is averse to the blog being anonymous, please feel free not to read it.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Climate crisis, DCC, EDDC

Where does EDDC now stand on climate emergency?

Owl is surprised there isn’t a lead councillor for climate emergency … Oh, wait, the CEO has already made the climate emergency policy himself:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2019/05/08/eddc-ceo-puts-new-majority-in-their-place-about-climate-crisis-wants-very-slow-change/

Presumably, the job will be for new Councillor Sam Hawkins (Estates and Property Services) and Asset Management Group’s Geoff Pook to sort out between them.

Here is Devon County Council’s pathetic attempt to do something:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/campaigners-question-speed-devons-response-2906352

taking the St Francis of Assisi approach – “make me a saint, but not yet”.

It’s going to get very warm EDDC’s new HQ in Honiton – especially in that long, narrow, dark Council Chamber; no opening the french doors in the Members Room next door, with the view out to the gardens and out to sea with a cooling breeze … just the noise from the slip road to the A35 or, if you are really lucky, a view of Aldi or Lidl – or possibly both!

But no worries – the climate cost and real cost of the air-conditioning in summer and heating in winter will not be as high as in the old HQ …..