Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Inequality, Sleaze, Tax avoidance

Top lawyers argue tax avoidance laws cause privacy problem for their rich client!

“The law firm Mishcon de Reya has filed a legal complaint against new anti-tax evasion measures, arguing that they infringe privacy and data protection rights.

The Information Commissioner’s Office confirmed it had received a complaint against HMRC and the Common Reporting Standard, a system whereby different countries’ tax authorities automatically exchange information.

The complaint was filed on behalf of an unnamed EU citizen who did not wish to be identified, according to the Financial Times. The woman is domiciled in Italy, meaning she argues it is her home for tax purposes.

It is not known where she is currently resident, though she was reported to have been previously resident in the UK and to have had a UK bank account containing £4,000.

The complaint claims that sharing her information with overseas tax authorities would subject her to a risk of her data being hacked, and would infringe European data protection and human rights laws. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/aug/02/mishcon-de-reya-complains-about-anti-tax-evasion-measures

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, EDDC HQ, Local Government Finance

“Public Works Loan Board loans rise as councils try to shore up financial futures”

This is how EDDC is financing the shortfall of the build of its new HQ – you know, the one that was supposed to be “cost neutral” and was costing around £10 million at the last evaluation.

“Local authority borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board has reached a seven-year high as cash-strapped councils increasingly invest in capital projects.

In the last financial year the PWLB increased the value of loans to local authorities by 42%. It advanced 780 loans with a value of £5.2bn to local authorities, compared to 622 loans with a total value of £3.6bn in 2016-17, the board’s annual accounts, released yesterday showed.

The value of loans has been going up in recent years after dropping to £3.2bn in 2012-13 following a high of £16bn in 2011-12.

Paul Dossett, head of local government at Grant Thornton, said the rise was part of a growing trend of councils borrowing more – and not just from the PWLB.

As a recent analysis by PF showed, local authorities are increasingly looking at methods such as bonds and forward-starting loans for capital projects.

“It reflects the growing increase we have seen in capital investment in local authority infrastructure as a whole,” he said.

“While different councils have different options and approaches to generating income, a small amount of this increase is likely to relate to investment in assets for income generation.”

Although, he believed the rate of councils investing in assets for commercial gain might have slowed since the government responded to its consultation on the prudential code earlier this year.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced in Feburary it will now require local authorities to produce an annual investment strategy to ensure greater transparency. …”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/08/pwlb-loans-rise-councils-try-shore-financial-futures

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Local Enterprise Partnership, Martin Shaw (Seaton), Post-Brexit Adjustments, Small and Medium businesses

Our LEP asked businesses about Brexit – probably not happy with answers

From the blog of East Devon Alliance DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (Seaton and Colyton):

“The Heart of the South West Local Economic Partnership (LEP) has belatedly published a report (dated May 2018) on local businesses’ views of Brexit.
This table shows answers to the question, ‘What is your overall assessment at this stage of the likely impact of Brexit on your business?’

POSITIVE (1)
NEGATIVE (9)
Neutral (7)
Mixed (6)
Don’t know (6)

The LEP summarises this table as ‘Businesses’ assessment of the overall impact of Brexit at this stage is quite varied.‘

VARIED? ONE BUSINESS OUT OF 29 THINKS ITS IMPACT WILL BE POSITIVE, COMPARED TO 9 WHO THINK NEGATIVE, AND THAT IS VARIED?

Other findings:

two-thirds of businesses have done no formal planning for Brexit

uncertainty is a big concern

the biggest specific concerns are about are changes to regulatory alignment [i.e. departure from the Single Market] and the speed of customs arrangements [i.e. departure from the Customs Union]

only 1 out of 29 expects it to be positive for their sector; 9 out of 29 expect it to be negative (the rest expect it to be ‘neutral’ or ‘mixed’, or don’t know)

This report (How firms across HotSW are preparing for Brexit, Report to HotSW LEP, Devon County Council and Partners) was prepared in March and April 2018, drawing on interviews conducted in February and March 2018, so it is already seriously out of date.

In the spring, businesses could reasonably have hoped for a deal:

What do businesses think now that May’s government has caved in to Rees-Mogg and ditched plans for a customs union with the EU?

What do they think of the ‘no deal’ scenario?

How are they going to cope if they still haven’t done the formal planning?
It isn’t difficult to guess. And why has this report been so delayed? Why wasn’t it reported earlier to DCC?”

Local Economic Partnership massages local businesses’ anxieties about Brexit: just 1 business out of 29 surveyed thought it would have a ‘positive’ impact, 9 said negative, many were worried – but that is just a ‘quite varied’ assessment according to the LEP!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Local Government Finance

Comments

1 Comment

[Tory] “Northamptonshire forced to pay the price of a reckless half-decade”

“Northamptonshire county council’s catastrophic financial collapse, and the desperate measures it now proposes to balance the books, reflect management incompetence on a grand scale as well as the punishing effects of eight years of austerity cuts.

Less than six months after it was declared technically insolvent, the Tory-run council now faces a sobering reckoning for a reckless half-decade in which it refused to raise council tax to pay for the soaring costs of social care, preferring to patch up budget holes with accounting ruses and inappropriate use of financial reserves.

Over the next few weeks the council will map out where previously unheard-of levels of cuts will fall. There are no concrete details yet, other than a promise that its future “core offer” to residents will be a bare legal minimum of service, focused only on the most vulnerable residents.

No services will go unscathed, even in priority areas like child protection that have up to now been relatively insulated. There are no easy cuts left to make: the council says hard savings must be dug out of the most essential services. What will remain is what one observer wryly called “a people-not-dying level of service”. …

… Once a low-tax Tory flagship council, touting itself as the future of local government, Northamptonshire is now bust. Its core offer warns residents, with unwitting pathos, that the most they can expect in future is “a reasonable level of customer service, within our means.”

http://flip.it/wGO8K0

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments

“Local council [and LEPs?] plans for Brexit disruption and unrest revealed”

Owl says Wonder what EDDC, DCC, Greater Exeter and our Local Enterprise Partnership have up their sleeves? Or do they have sleeves at all! Will they enlighten us?

“Councils around the UK have begun preparing for possible repercussions of various forms of Brexit, ranging from potential difficulties with farming and delivering services to concerns about civil unrest.

Planning documents gathered by Sky News via freedom of information requests show a number of councils are finding it difficult to plan because they are not clear about the path the government in pursuing.

The responses, from 30 councils around the UK, follow the publication of details of Kent council’s no-deal planning, which suggests thatparts of the M20 might have to be used as a lorry park to deal with port queues until at least 2023.

Bristol council’s documents flag up a potential “top-line threat” from “social unrest or disillusionment during/after negotiations as neither leave nor remain voters feel their concerns are being met”.

One of the fullest responses came from Pembrokeshire council, which released a Brexit risk register detailing 19 ways it believes leaving the EU could affect the area.

Eighteen are seen as negative, of which seven are deemed potentially high impact, including the “ready availability of vital supplies” such as food and medicines.

The one positive impact was that Brexit may drive people to move away from the UK, which could reduce demand on council services.

A number of councils, including East Sussex, are worried about the provision of social care after Brexit because of the potential fall in the number of EU nationals working in the sector.

According to Sky, East Sussex’s report says: “There has already been a fall in the number of EU nationals taking jobs in the care sector and the county council has great concerns that the end of freedom of movement will put further pressure on the sector that is already stretched and struggling to deliver the level of care required for our ageing elderly population.”

A number of councils have expressed concern about the disappearance of various EU funding streams and whether thethe Treasury would step in to replace them.

The local authority in the Shetlands released a document saying that tariffs on lamb exports under a no-deal Brexit would mean 86% of sheep farms could expect to make losses. The current figure is about 50%.

One common complaint, according to Sky, was frustration at the lack of central government information about which plan might be pursued. Wirral council said: “Given the lack of detail from government about any proposed deal or arrangements, it is difficult to carry out an assessment that is not purely speculative at this time.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/local-council-plans-for-brexit-disruption-and-unrest-revealed

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Environment (local), Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Public Open Space, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

The (late) East Devon HQ flower meadow that was …

Ed Dolphin (Sidmouth Arboretum) is being interviewed by ITV in the ex-flower meadow tonight – for ITV SW.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Local Government Finance

“Philip Hammond orders Whitehall to plan for more [local government] cuts”

Owl says: This way council tax go up to cover the shortfall and government can avoid the responsibility of raising general taxes even more than the are about to be raised. The end result is that we all pay more for less – unless you are super-rich, of course.

“Philip Hammond has told Whitehall to plan for another round of cuts before next year’s spending review, putting him on a collision course with some cabinet colleagues who want tax rises instead of austerity.

The chancellor wants ministries without protected budgets, including public health, further education, local government and transport, to work with the Treasury in the summer to identify potential areas for savings.

Some departments believe that these budgets could be cut by as much as 5 per cent. The letter calling for work to start on the savings, sent by Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, last week, does not contain a specific target.

Spending totals have been set until the spring of 2020. Mr Hammond will allocate individual budgets, traditionally for the following four years, in a comprehensive review after next spring.

He must first fight a battle with colleagues over whether to raise taxes to cushion some or all of the cuts. Some senior cabinet ministers are understood to be squaring up for a fight. Last week’s public sector pay rises must be paid out of existing budgets.

One minister said: “Philip Hammond has got Theresa May to agree to no more borrowing [above the fiscal rules] so that means it looks like cuts to pay for the extra money for the NHS. But the answer is to raise taxes to protect spending.”

The chancellor has already made it plain that extra tax rises are likely to be necessary to pay for the £83 billion extra in coming years that was announced for the NHS in June.

The overall mix of spending cuts and tax rises could be announced in the autumn budget, inconveniently coinciding with the middle of the Brexit negotiations, or delayed until the comprehensive spending review itself. Mr Hammond has secured a commitment from Mrs May that she will keep to fiscal rules, which force the government to reduce the cyclically adjusted deficit to below 2 per cent of GDP by 2020-21 and having debt as a share of GDP falling in the same period. The chancellor has headroom of £15 billion against the 2021 deficit target, meaning that his scope for borrowing is minimal.

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, has suggested to cabinet ministers that more needs to be done to improve growth. Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, has proposed boosting it with a tax giveaway such as that brought in by President Trump. The debate about spending and taxation has already begun on the Tory back benches. Bim Afolami, MP for Hitchin & Harpenden, said he understood that the Treasury had a hard job but added: “We urgently need to shift the debate away from management of tough budgetary rules towards growth, moving from austerity to prosperity for a majority of people in this country.

“We need to move away from a necessary but ultimately negative message of managing tough budgetary moves, towards a forward-thinking vision for post-Brexit prosperity sooner rather than later. In general terms every single department should be looking for savings, just like every business does.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Mark Williams CEO EDDC

Comments

3 Comments

“Blundering council worker mows a wildlife meadow at [EDDC HQ] centre of Sir David Attenborough’s Big Butterfly Count”

Owl says: Just one question: many senior officers occupy rooms facing the wildflower meadow. Did not one of them stop and wonder what the man was doing?

“Red-faced council bosses have apologised after a blundering worker mowed flat a wildflower meadow being monitored for David Attenborough’s Big Butterfly Count.

East Devon District Council said sorry after an employee on a sit-on mower turned the valued site into a desert at The Knowle in Sidmouth.

The worker was tasked with cutting a pathway from the car parks for people to walk down to the town. Instead he cut the whole nine acres. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6011839/Blundering-council-worker-flattens-Big-Butterfly-Count-meadow.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest

“Jacob Rees-Mogg firm advising top Canada marijuana market investor”

“Jacob Rees-Mogg’s investment firm is advising one of the highest-profile investors in Canada’s marijuana market.

Somerset Capital Management, co-founded by the prominent Brexiter MP, is an adviser to an emerging markets fund established by Purpose Investments.

Purpose Investments has emerged this year as one of the most prominent investors in the Canadian cannabis market. The drug will become legal for recreational use there in October, but it has been legal for medical use since 2001.

Rees-Mogg, chair of the pro-Brexit European Research Group, has refused to back either the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis in the UK.

The development comes days after it emerged that Somerset set up a second fund in Ireland after it warned earlier this year about the financial dangers of the sort of hard Brexit favoured by the Conservative MP.

Documents show that Somerset Capital Management is an adviser to the Purpose Emerging Markets Dividend Fund, which invests in sectors including financials, IT and mutual funds in countries such as South Korea, Russia, China and Turkey. The fund does not include investments in the marijuana market.

With legalisation in Canada due in the autumn, funds across North America are looking to cash in.

In January, it was reported that Purpose’s subsidiary Redwood Asset Management had set up Canada’s first actively managed marijuana-themed exchange-traded fund. According to the Purpose website, the Purpose Marijuana Opportunities Fund is close to fully invested.

Rees-Mogg, the MP for North East Somerset, said in an interview last year that he would not be in favour of the legalisation or decriminalisation of cannabis. “With the [cannabis] laws as they currently are, you provide a certain amount of protection for people.

“If you have a system of protection which is saving people you are right to keep the ban in place. The onus of proof is on those who wish to change the law and I don’t think they have managed to establish that the extra risk is worth taking,” he said.

A spokesman for Somerset Capital Management confirmed that it advises an account on behalf of Redwood.

Rees-Mogg has been contacted for comment. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/31/jacob-rees-mogg-firm-advising-top-canada-marijuana-market-investor

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Health and Social Care (local), Local Government Finance, NHS (local)

Local Government Association debates tax rise to fund social care

“One of the many downsides of Brexit is that for the last two years or more it has sucked all the energy out of the Westminster policy making process, with the result that other problems are being ignored. It is a major opportunity cost. There are plenty of examples, but adult social care is probably the most glaring. Experts agree the situation is in crisis. The Conservatives floated some audacious plans in their manifesto, but they proved electorally toxic and since then they have gone silent on the topic, putting off announcements until the much-delayed green paper due later this year. Labour’s own plans are sketchy and, understandably, they are reluctant to propose reforms that will involve higher when the government won’t take the initiative itself.

So all credit to the cross-party Local Government Association that is today floating plans in a green paper (pdf) to raise taxes to put care funding on a sustainable footing. With councils in England receiving almost 5,000 new requests a day for adult social care, the LGA says this is essential.

Since 2010 councils have had to bridge a £6bn funding shortfall just to keep the adult social care system going. In addition the LGA estimates that adult social care services face a £3.5bn funding gap by 2025, just to maintain existing standards of care, while latest figures show that councils in England receive 1.8m new requests for adult social care a year – the equivalent of nearly 5,000 a day.

Decades of failures to find a sustainable solution to how to pay for adult social care for the long-term, and the Government’s recent decision to delay its long-awaited green paper on the issue until the autumn, has prompted council leaders to take action.

Short-term cash injections have not prevented care providers reluctantly closing their operations or returning contracts to councils and less choice and availability to a rising number of people with care needs. This is increasing the strain on an already-overstretched workforce and unpaid carers, and leading to more people not having their care needs met.

Increased spend on adult social care – which now accounts for nearly 40 per cent of total council budgets – is threatening the future of other vital council services, such as parks, leisure centres and libraries, which help to keep people well and from needing care and support and hospital treatment.

The LGA is publishing its green paper to start a public debate on how adult social care could be properly funded. There’s a summary here:

https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/lga-launches-own-green-paper-adult-social-care-reaches-breaking-point

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jul/31/council-leaders-float-plans-to-raise-income-tax-or-other-taxes-to-fund-adult-social-care-politics-live

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Corruption, Democracy, Lobbying

Comments

3 Comments

” ‘Culture of impunity’ among MPs over hospitality from corrupt regimes “

“More than £330,000 was spent on flights and accommodation for MPs to visit Azerbaijan between 2007 and 2017, and 12 MPs were paid more than £90,000 to appear on Russian state TV, according to a report by Transparency International UK.

The report focused on parliamentarians who had accepted hospitality from corrupt and repressive governments while providing political access and lobbying.

It said many of the MPs and peers had been given all-expenses-paid trips to such countries paid for by the host government.

The publication of the report follows the suspension of the DUP MP Ian Paisley last week after he admitted he had failed to declare £50,000 of family holidays paid for by the Sri Lankan government.

The parliamentary commissioner for standards found that Paisley had breached the rules on paid advocacy by writing to David Cameron in 2014 to lobby against a UN resolution on human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, after receiving holidays from the country’s government.

Transparency International UK’s report also found that two MPs had provided advisory services to the king of Bahrain over the period the government enforced a brutal crackdown of Arab spring protesters in 2001.

The authors of the report say that not only have some MPs actively supported corrupt and repressive governments, but that there is also a “culture of impunity” regarding such practices.

“The activities of the Azerbaijan lobby in parliament has become so infamous that it is seemingly tolerated as almost an eccentricity,” the report said.

Steve Goodrich, Transparency International UK’s senior researcher officer and one of the authors of the report, said: “This is not the first time that the inappropriate behaviour of foreign regimes in lobbying UK parliamentarians has been exposed. But our report shows that this has become a systemic pattern of behaviour, with many MPs and peers completely ignorant or knowingly dismissive of these problems.

“This type of engagement between parliamentarians and corrupt and repressive regimes can no longer be kicked into the long grass because it’s politically convenient. It is a detriment to the UK’s standing as a beacon of democracy and the rule of law.”

Following the publication of its report, Transparency International UK is calling for an inquiry into the conduct of MPs and peers in legitimising corrupt and repressive governments.

The group recommends that MPs and peers should also be banned from taking trips paid for by foreign states and their lobbyists over £500 in value. Instead, the group suggests that a list of organisations should be agreed in parliament for whom paid trips over this amount are acceptable.

Transparency International UK also recommends that MPs should be prohibited from providing paid or voluntary services to foreign governments and state institutions, and that the register of members’ financial interests should be published as structured open data.

Duncan Hames, director of policy at Transparency International UK, said it was “time to end the discredited practice of our parliamentarians enjoying generous foreign hospitality”.

He said: “International visits can certainly aid informed parliamentary debate, but when these trips are offered by foreign governments they undermine the independence of those MPs accepting them.

“Our politicians are elected to work on our behalf, not the interests of foreign states who increasingly have subversive desires. Global scandals have exposed the activity of foreign states meddling in the affairs of others and we need to shore up our defences against this sort of activity.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/30/transparency-international-uk-hospitality-corrupt-regimes-azerbaijan

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish

Comments

1 Comment

“Consultation on new offence of intimidating Parliamentary candidates and campaigners”

What happened to the “rough and tumble” of electioneering?

Owl fears we are going the way of the USA where no criticism of the ruling party (sorry, person) is tolerated. And where some politicians only seem to have thin skins when their rivals challenge them …..

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36198%3Aconsultation-on-new-offence-of-intimidating-parliamentary-candidates-and-campaigners&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, DCC, Economy, EDDC, Growth Strategy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Governance and transparency – How does our Local Enterprise Partnership measure up?

A long read, but if you worry about the unaccountability of our Local Enterprise Partnership (and you should) it is a “must read” – note the requirement for LEPs to be scrutinised by council scrutiny committees:

For good or ill the Government has chosen Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to play a key part in assisting in the delivery of government policies to support local economic growth.

There are 38 LEPs in England. Through the Local Growth Fund, the government has committed £12 billion to local areas between 2015 and 2021; £9.1 billion of this is through Growth Deals with LEPs. The government also sees LEPs as key to its new industrial strategy. But performance has varied as acknowledged in the government’s publication of July 2018 “Strengthened Local Enterprise Partnerships”.

Amongst other things this paper announced that all the recommendations of last year’s Mary Ney review (see below), and this year’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on Governance and Departmental oversight of the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough (GCGP) LEP, would be accepted.

Now is the moment to review these three publications which, taken together, amount to a scathing criticism of the way LEP governance arrangements, and government oversight of them, have, to date, been working.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/896/896.pd

In 2016 the PAC reported on the governance of LEPs and made clear recommendations for improvement which were accepted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. [Footnote: East Devon Alliance submitted evidence to this inquiry].

Despite this, things are going seriously wrong and, in the words of the PAC: “the Department needs to get its act together and assure taxpayers that it is monitoring how LEPs spend taxpayers’ money and how it evaluates results.”

In the case of CGGP (Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership) the LEP could not respond satisfactorily to allegations of conflicts of interest, levelled by an MP. The governance arrangements were not up to standard. There were no comprehensive conflicts of interest policies nor an up to date register of interests for board members. In addition, the LEP was not acting transparently.

In March 2017, the Department applied the nuclear option and withheld the release of money to the LEP. Then, in December 2017, the LEP went into voluntary liquidation, following the Chair’s resignation the previous month.

Key findings by the PAC were that GCGP LEP did not comply with expected standards in public life, particularly in terms of accountability and transparency. Also that the Department’s oversight system failed to identify that GCGP LEP as one which should have raised concerns. Furthermore, that the Department has a long way to go before it can be sure that all LEPs have implemented Mary Ney’s review properly.

MARY NEY REVIEW

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-local-enterprise-partnership-governance-and-transparency

Which leads us to: the “Review of Local Enterprise Partnership Governance and Transparency”, Led by Mary Ney, Non-Executive Director, DCLG Board, October 2017. This is an internal departmental review but nevertheless surprisingly thorough.

The review makes 17 recommendations (all now formally accepted) covering the following topics: Culture & Accountability; Structure & Decision-Making; Conflicts of Interest; Complaints; Section 151 [financial accounting] Officer Oversight; Transparency; Government Oversight & Enforcement. Just a few of these 17 recommendations of particular importance are highlighted out below.

Many LEPs have codes of conduct reflecting the requirements of company board directors and do not sufficiently embrace the dimension of public sector accountability. This is inadequate as it does not reflect the dual dimension (i.e. public and private) of the role of board members.

The code of conduct, which all board members and staff sign up to, should explicitly require the Nolan Principles of public life to be adopted as the basis for this code. E.g. the notion of integrity whereby holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

Key features of decision-making to ensure good governance and probity should include:

• a clear strategic vision and priorities set by the Board which has been subject to wide consultation against which all decisions must be judged;
• open advertising of funding opportunities;
• a sub-committee or panel with the task of assessing bids/decisions
• independent due diligence and assessment of the business case and value for money;
• specific arrangements for decisions to be signed off by a panel comprising board members from the local authority, in some cases including a power of veto;
• Section 151 officer line of sight on all decisions and ability to provide financial advice;
• use of scrutiny arrangements to monitor decision-making and the achievements of the LEP.

Conflict of Interest declarations must include employment, directorships, significant shareholdings, land and property, related party transactions, membership of organisations, gifts and hospitality, sponsorships. Interests of household members to also be considered.

LEPs to include in their local statements how scenarios of potential conflicts of interest of local councillors, private sector and other board members will be managed whilst ensuring input from their areas of expertise in developing strategies and decision-making, without impacting on good governance.

LEPs will need to publish a whistleblowing policy.

As part of transparency, in addition to the obvious things such as agendas and minutes, LEPs should maintain on their websites a published rolling schedule of the projects funded giving a brief description, names of key recipients of funds/ contractors and amounts by year.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE – STRENGHTENED LEPs

Click to access Strengthened_Local_Enterprise_Partnerships.pdf

In accepting these recommendations the government in its “strengthened LEP” paper does add a few points of clarification which are worth noting.

Readers may recall our LEP, Heart of the South West (HotSW), proposing in its 2015 prospectus “towards a devolution deal” to deliver, amongst other things, a world-class integrated health and care system within our communities. A prospectus produced without any public consultation. Well, the government has taken on board a further PAC criticism that it has not been clear about the current role, function, and purpose of LEPs.

The government now says it will set all Local Enterprise Partnerships a single mission to deliver Local Industrial Strategies to promote productivity.

Each Local Enterprise Partnership’s overall performance will be held to account through measures agreed in their delivery plans. The Government will work with Local Enterprise Partnerships to ensure that they have these plans in place by April 2019.

In addition, Government will commission an annual economic outlook to measure and publish economic performance across all Local Enterprise Partnerships and benchmark performance of individual Local Enterprise Partnerships. In the light of HotSW aim of a 4% annual growth rate and record-breaking productivity growth, starting this year, this might prove to be an interesting exercise.

Other points on topics such as increasing diversity of board members are covered in the previous Watch blog:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/07/27/government-proposes-shake-up-of-local-enterprise-partnerships/

MEANWHILE

The House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees was also investigating LEPs and made this recommendation in December 2017 [East Devon Alliance submitted evidence to this inquiry as well]:

“The Government to make clear how LEPs are to have democratic, and publicly visible, oversight. We recommend that upper tier councils, and combined authorities where appropriate, should be able to monitor the performance and effectiveness of LEPs through their scrutiny committees. In line with other public bodies, scrutiny committees should be able to require LEPs to provide information and attend committee meetings as required.”

Click to access 369.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Electoral/Returning Officer, EDDC, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Voter registration for 2019 local elections begins

Owl says: keep an eye out for house-to-house canvassers for those who do not register. They have been few and far between in recent years, leading to around 6,000 eligible voters having been “missed”, leading to embarrassing questions (and answers) to EDDC’s Electoral Registration Officer (EDDC CEO Mark Williams, paid extra for this job) in Parliament:

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/voter-engagement-in-the-uk/oral/14118.html

“As part of East Devon’s annual voter registration canvass, households will soon be receiving a form asking residents to check whether the information that appears on the electoral register for those living at their address is correct.

The aim of the form is to ensure that the electoral register is up to date and to identify any residents who are not registered so that they can be encouraged to do so.

Local district, town and parish council elections are scheduled to take place in May 2019.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/east-devon-district-council-reminder-to-register-to-vote-1-5622986

People are urged to take the opportunity to make sure that when the elections take place, they will easily be able to take part.

Any residents who have any questions can contact the electoral services team at electoralservices@eastdevon.gov.uk or on 01395 571529

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Corruption, Democracy, Lobbying, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Russians give May’s Tories £800,000

“Theresa May could be forced to come clean on the source of Tory cash linked to Russia.

A report on meddling in UK politics by Vladimir Putin’s regime urges the Electoral Commission to devise “more stringent requirements for major donors to demonstrate the source of donations”.

The intervention by MPs on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee comes after a Mirror probe revealed the Prime Minister accepted a £50,000 donation from the wife of a former Russian minister – on the day she blamed Moscow for the Skripal poisoning.

In total, Mrs May has let more than £800,000 from Russia-linked sources into Tory coffers while PM.

Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Jon Trickett said she should hand it all back, adding: “Serious questions must be answered about why she thinks it is appropriate to accept this money after warning about Russian interference in the UK.”

And Lib Dem spokeswoman Christine Jardine said her “refusal” to explain donations “threatens the integrity of our democracy”.

A Tory spokesman said all donations are properly declared and comply with the law.”

http://flip.it/D1jX6R

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Inequality, Lobbying, Transparency

US donors courted by Tory ultra-right wing think-tank

“A rightwing thinktank has been offering potential US donors access to government ministers and civil servants as it raises cash for research to support the free-trade deals demanded by hardline Brexiters, according to an investigation.

The director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was secretly recorded telling an undercover reporter that funders could get to know ministers on first-name terms and that his organisation was in “the Brexit influencing game”.

Mark Littlewood claimed the IEA could make introductions to ministers and said the thinktank’s trade expert knew Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and Liam Fox well.

The IEA chief was also recorded suggesting potential US donors could fund and shape “substantial content” of research commissioned by the thinktank.

This could hugely benefit US farmers by lifting the ban on the sale in the UK of beef from cattle treated with growth hormones and chlorine-washed chicken.

Speaking about what kind of Westminster access the IEA could provide donors with, Littlewood told the investigator: “I have absolutely no problem with people who have business interests, us facilitating those.”

The investigation, undertaken in May and June, also revealed the thinktank had already provided access to a minister for a US organisation.

The disclosures are likely to raise fresh questions about the independence and status of the IEA, which is established as an educational charity. Charity Commission rules state that “an organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/29/rightwing-thinktank-ministerial-access-potential-us-donors-insitute-of-economic-affairs-brexit

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Consultation, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), Integrated Care Systems, NHS (local), Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Very important case law on consultation

This has great relevance to NHS consultations, the wording of consultation comments, the treatment of those comments and the duties and respinsibility of the DCC Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise evidence presented.

It is going to be much easier to challenge flawed consultations.

Those involved in these matters MUST read the full document (see source at end of post. Only a couple of the relevant sections are published here but should be read with the whole document.

“… “Commentary on
R (ex parte Kohler) v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime
[2018] EWHC 1881

This Briefing Note considers the judgment handed down by Lord Justice Lindblom and Mr Justice Lewis on 20th July 2018. It details the circumstances of the case, its wider context and, in particular discusses practical issues which will be of concern to consultation practitioners.

Background

In common with other police forces, the Metropolitan Police has needed to make huge savings in its budget. Unsurprisingly it has led to a review of what premises they occupy and whether they still need over-the-counter services at their police stations.

In July 2017, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) published a Public Access and Engagement Strategy, a dual-purpose document simultaneously consulting the public about the future direction of public engagement on policing and seeking views on proposals to close or ‘swap’ 37 police counters.

The consultation was heavily criticised, and at the Institute, we published a detailed critique under the provocative title Is this the worst consultation of 2017?

https://www.consultationinstitute.org/worst-consultation-2017/

Some of the complaints were heeded and a revised set of questions emerged three weeks after its original launch.

The legal challenge

Professor Paul Kohler lives in Wimbledon and in 2014, was subjected to a serious assault. He believes his life was possibly saved only thanks to the prompt response by police from Wimbledon Police Station.

The MOPAC proposal included a provision for that facility to be transferred elsewhere in the London Borough of Merton – to Mitcham, so that the site at Wimbledon could be sold and generate capital receipts. These in turn, according to the consultation document, would help the Met Police fund technology improvements needed to support the case for changing public access and reduce the traditional reliance on police counters. …

The Kohler case spells an end to the practice of sending decision-makers a summary report (or an unreadable tome) with a message ‘Don’t worry, there’s nothing here to stop you from going ahead!’. If a failure to consider a specific argument can spell illegality following a consultation, someone somewhere has to decide what might constitute such an argument. Who can be trusted to decide?

The Consultation Institute View [on the case]

• The Kohler case is a game-changer, placing the Gunning Four Principle of ‘conscientious consideration ‘ at centre stage. There have been few comparable cases, as flawed consultations have, in the past failed the pre-determination or the sufficient information tests. It remains to be seen if the judgment opens the door to more claims that decision-makers never properly studied consultee submissions. It could happen!

• One consequence is that campaigners and other smart stakeholders will structure their comments to ensure that they cannot easily be summarised, and may specifically seek assurances that their submissions will have been read by decision-makers.

• To respond to such pressures and to safeguard themselves, consultors will need to look again at their data analysis practices, possibly strengthening the independent element both in analysis and in reporting to decision-makers. They will also need to be better at political risk assessments. Independent Quality Assurance becomes even more attractive for controversial consultations.

• The case for Public consultation hearings is further strengthened, as decision-makers will be able to prove that they heard and understood particular arguments. …”

Full document here:

Click to access briefingnote21-mopac.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Planning System, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Manchester launches consultation on planning system reform”

“Manchester City Council has set out measures it says will “improve the transparency” of the planning process, including adding public viability assessments for new housing projects.

The council has started a consultation on the changes, which it says would signal “a new approach for developer contributions”.

Among the key changes will be the inclusion of affordable housing statements and viability assessments for all new housing projects; typically, viability statements are not typically made available on the city’s planning portal.

The council said public affordable housing statements would “provide an overview of the affordability ambition of a new development”. Currently, the council stipulates that 20% of new homes should be designated as affordable.

Under the consultation, it is proposed that affordable housing statements are made public for schemes of 15 or more homes. Where no affordable housing is proposed, a full, un-redacted copy of the viability assessment will need to be submitted.

Meanwhile, the inclusion of viability assessments would allow the public to scrutinise developer requirements for Section 106 contributions.

These will be required when a project does not “include the necessary policy provision or financial contributions”, justified on viability grounds.

Viability assessments will need to be provided “in its entirety,” according to the consultation guidelines. This includes the purchase process, purchase costs, estimated construction costs, professional fees, land acquisition price, and estimated profit and developer target returns.

The consultation is now open and is set to run until 14 September, and the documents can be accessed here.

Cllr Angeliki Stogia, Manchester City Council’s executive member for environment, planning and transport, said: “We want the people of Manchester to have faith in the planning process so they know the decisions being made have been fully scrutinised and where possible, Section 106 is being negotiated working with developers on larger developments.

“This consultation signals a new approach for developer contributions so that everyone who has an interest in the planning process is clear whether affordable housing contributions will underpin new development in the city.

“The move towards publication of viability assessments and affordable housing statements mark the first step in making the process more open and transparent bolstering our clear commitment to affordable housing through the planning process.”

https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/manchester-launches-consultation-on-planning-system-reform/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Transparency

Urgent action needed on political advertising

“Following a request by the Culture Media and Sport committee, Facebook released the adverts Vote Leave ran during the EU referendum.

The series of adverts targeted specific Facebook users – but in many it was not clear who had paid for them.

We know who sends us leaflets during elections – we should know who’s paying for online adverts too.

Openness and transparency should be the standard during election and referendum campaigns, not the exception.

Will you sign our petition for online imprints and to release all the official adverts from the EU referendum?”

Sign the petition:
https://action.electoral-reform.org.uk/page/28040/petition/1

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Air pollution, AONB, EDDC, Fords of Sidmouth, Sidford Business Park

80+ people protest against proposed Sidford business park

“Protestors made their feelings clear as part of a march saying ‘no’ to the proposed multi-million pound business park development in Sidford.

In excess of 80 people turned up to the ‘Say No to Sidford Business Park’ campaign event on Monday.

Residents were armed with homemade placards voicing their opposition to the application, which is looking to create 8,445 sq m of employment floor space on the Two Bridges site.

Councillor Marianne Rixson said that there was more than 1.6million sq ft of commercial property available in Exeter and Honiton catering for B1, B2, and B8 business use.

The plans also did not ‘conserve and enhance’ the area under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidelines.

She told the crowd: “This development is going to be within our AONB which is precious.

“The height of these buildings are going to be raised by 1.5m for them to flood proof the site, which with the 7.5m on top is going to be 9m high – that is twice the height of a normal bungalow.

“There is a duty to conserve and enhance, this is not going to do either.

“Also it says it should be in exceptional circumstances; we have very low unemployment and there is plenty of property elsewhere, where is the exceptional need?”

The youngest protester at the event was just two years old, with many children joining adults to raise their concerns about developing in the AONB.

Sidbury pupil Billy Bonfield, aged six, said: “I do not want people to build a big industrial estate.”

His mum Becky added: “He goes to Sidbury School, there’s always gnarl ups on the road – it’s just not big enough.”

Concerned cyclist Sue Dyson said: “I’m in fear for my life going up School Lane. If there is more traffic, I think I wouldn’t be able to do it, it’s bad enough as it is in.”

Graham Cooper added: “The best idea is to redistribute the employment space across the area and develop brown field sites first.

“You mustn’t go and develop AONB land unless there’s proven to be a need.”

Campaigners are currently taking to the streets of Sidford and Sidbury with a petition which they will look to present to East Devon District Council.

The campaign has raised £750 so far to spend on signs and posters and urged people to keep donating.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/residents-march-against-plans-for-sidford-business-park-1-5624746