“A strong warning that austerity policies can do more harm than good has been delivered by economists from the International Monetary Fund, in a critique of the neoliberal doctrine that has dominated economics for the past three decades. In an article seized on by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, the IMF economists said rising inequality was bad for growth and that governments should use controls to cope with destabilising capital flows. …”
Category Archives: Austerity cuts
Land Registry privatisation – all interested companies involved in tax avoidance
“Breaking: our people-powered investigation shows all four companies hoping to bid on the Land Registry have links to offshore tax havens. [1] The revelations are splashed all over The Times today – this kind of publicity is the last thing the government will want as they consult on plans to sell off the profitable public service. [2]
The Times is a paper the government takes seriously – our investigation will have sounded alarm bells.
The government’s already under fire from hundreds of thousands of us, and even from their own experts. If we contact our MPs about the tax havens revelation, we can make sure the ministers responsible for the sell-off are being dogged with questions from their fellow MPs too. [3] This could be the thing that tips them to back down.
Can you email your MP now and ask them to read the news story and speak out against the government’s plans to sell-off the Land Registry? It takes a few minutes, and there’s some suggestions of what to say.”
38 Degrees
How to spin the fact that poorer EDDC residents can’t afford beach huts
Austerity or selling off the family silver … and gold?
“… Privatisation is the multibillion-pound centrepiece of Osborne’s austerity – yet it rarely gets a mention from either politicians or press. The Queen mentioned it in her speech last week, but the headline writers ignored it. And if you don’t know that this Thursday is the closing date for consultation on the sale of the Land Registry, our public record of who owns what property, that’s hardly your fault – I haven’t spotted it in the papers, either.
But without getting rid of prize assets, Osborne’s austerity programme falls apart. At a time when tax revenues are more weak stream than healthy flood, those sales bring much-needed cash into the Treasury and make his sums add up. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has ruled that the only reason the chancellor met his debts target last year was because he flogged off our public assets. And what a fire sale that was, with everything from our last remaining stake in the Royal Mail to shares in Eurostar shoved out the door in the biggest wave of privatisations of any year in British history.
And more, much more, is to come. The all new and mostly grotesque housing bill will force local authorities to sell “high-value” council houses once a family moves out – which will basically hand over whatever remains of social housing in central London to investors. Osborne also wants local authorities “to dispose of potentially surplus assets”, of which he calculates they have £60bn “in property not used for schools or housing”. That would be property such as our public libraries and swimming pools – but to a government hellbent on asset-stripping such communal necessities are merely unsold inventory.
At Whitehall, ministers plan to sell a big chunk of Channel 4, and the public stake in the national air traffic control. And that’s just the start, because here’s something else you probably won’t have read about: Osborne has bundled up all of our public holdings – in every company from the collapsed banks to the Royal Mint – and put them under the control of a government organisation called UK Government Investments. Its CEO (what else?) is a former doyen of the City called Mark Russell. In a rare interview in 2013, Russell declared: “We don’t believe government makes for a particularly good shareholder. Our belief is that unless there is a good policy reason for government to have a shareholding then really we should be seeking to divest those shareholdings.” Everything must go is no longer the cry of distressed shopkeepers – it is now public policy. …
… At best, privatisation is a short-term gain for a long-term loss. The public sells one of its prize assets in order to enable the chancellor to bank some cash immediately. In a report published on Monday, the campaign group We Own It calculates that if Osborne sells the Land Registry, National Air Traffic Services, Channel 4 and the Ordnance Survey the public will kiss goodbye to control over £7.7bn in dividends and profits in the next 50 years. Sure, we pocket a couple of billion now – but we lose far more in the long run.
These are services that have taken many decades, even centuries, of public investment and management to build up. The Land Registry dates back to Victorian times; the Ordnance Survey’s aerial photographs of enemy territory helped Britain win the first world war.
All that accumulated effort and ingenuity will be handed over to a small group of investors – and for what? Better management? A recent study of the evidence by the University of Greenwich concludes there is “no significant difference in efficiency between public and privately owned companies in public services”. For more investment? Ministers selling off everything from railways to water have promised privatisation will bring greater investment. It comes – but it’s always the public that ends up paying for it.
Thatcher claimed that selling off BT, British Gas and the rest would turn Britain into a shareholder democracy. Official figures show that Britons now own less than half as much of the UK stock market as they did before Thatcher’s first privatisation.
Osborne’s privatisation, like the rest of his austerity programme, will enable him to transfer wealth from the public to a far smaller group of private investors. The employees can look forward to cuts in jobs, pay and conditions – as we have seen across the privatised utilities. The rest of us, the customers, will endure higher bills and paying for hidden subsidies. And the chancellor? He will have brought in enough cash to enable him to make some pre-election tax cuts – to literally buy himself votes.
Osborne calls this privatisation. I treat it as part and parcel of austerity. But there is another term you and I might use. Because this making off with our public property is nothing more than legalised larceny.”
Councils bleeding residents dry with residential parking permit prices
“UK councils have increased the cost of resident parking permits by an average of 51% since 2011, research has found.
An investigation by car insurance firm esure also revealed that more than half of local authorities have expanded the number of parking zones which require payment in the past two years.
The study revealed that the average cost of an annual permit is £64, but some motorists pay more than 10 times that amount. However the Local Government Association (LGA) insisted that councils are “on the side of motorists” and have to balance the requirements of residents and commuters.”
Tim Jones and Andrew Ledbetter get the wrong end of the stick
“Frustration is mounting about the lack of Government support for Devon and Cornwall rail improvements, as ministers pledge billions of pounds for schemes in London.
Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw accused ministers of having “absolutely no intention” to keep its promises to invest “record” amounts in the region’s rail.
While businessman Tim Jones warns South West firms are losing confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver. …
… Chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council, Tim Jones, added that local businesses are growing “frustrated” with the Government’s “regurgitated” assurances. “Business people are saying: we’ve read this all before, we’re bored of this… we do not have confidence,” he said.
The Peninsula Rail Task Force, which is overseeing the region’s bid for rail investment, has now published its draft consultation outlining proposals for the network. Chairman Andrew Leadbetter said the group has have been “pressing the point” that the South West has the lowest investment per head of all regions.
“But that in itself is not a compelling reason to invest. We have to demonstrate investment in the rail network will yield a return,” he said. “We are competing against other regions so I would urge everyone to support the Task Force in making the case and securing our rightful share of funding.”
Er, actually Tim and Andrew it’s YOU and your pals of the Local Enterprise Partnership we don’t have confidence in. You are just as guilty – perhaps more so – for having your cosy jobs for you (development and nuclear) pals and keeping everything you do, spend and acquire secret.
Criticising your pals further up the greasy pole ( or the old excuse that it’s all the previous government’s fault) doesn’t absolve you – you are just a bit lower down on that same pole and just as responsible for the mess we are in.
Over-development: is this why our local health services are in deficit?
From a correspondent – source not confirmed and views expressed are those of correspondent:
“.. North Devon District Councillor recently attended a meeting to discuss cuts to services at our North Devon District Hospital. Need to save £15M annually.
Those attending the meeting were told that the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS trust have to save money by cutting services. This has been forced on them due to the increasing demand on existing services, given rate of major planning approvals.
So there we have it, those that administer a crucial part of our health infrastructure have admitted that cuts are being proposed due to the increased demand that will be created by the recent volume of housing approvals, and the resultant influx of people coming to live in North Devon.”
Sign of the times …
Source: Express and Echo website
Difficult times if you are young in Cranbrook
Cranbrook has three times the average number of 0-4 year olds compared to places with a similar population and above average numbers for ages 5-14 and double the average for 25-34 year olds.
There is little funding available for all these age groups, particularly teenagers. Residents are doing their best to provide appropriate activities with little financial or other help, though there seem to be many ” partnership” meetings which, as yet, have had little impact.
Source: current e-edition, Cranbrook Herald, page 16
Accountants gloomy – now the Church of England sells investments
See post below. Now the Church of England has announced it is selling investments even though it outperforms the market.
The Church Estates Commissioner writes:
“The nervousness of investors is explained by the feeling that governments have lost the power to reverse any slowdown in economic activity. In earlier times they would reduce interest rates, but now that rates hover around zero, that remedy is unavailable. And it’s hard to believe that negative interest rates can provide the necessary boost, or that governments would let the supply of money expand.
“In other words, the risk is that economic activity slows down across the world and remains stuck at a low level.”
“EDF says Hinkley Point cost could rise £3 billion, timing slips”
“French utility EDF (EDF.PA) warned on Thursday that the cost of building two nuclear reactors in Britain could reach nearly 21 billion pounds, about three billion more than it said in October.
The equity commitment on the Hinkley Point project includes a contingency margin which could reach 13.8 billion pounds for EDF and 6.9 billion for Chinese partner CGN, for a total of 20.7 billion pounds, EDF said in a statement ahead of its annual shareholders’ meeting.
In October, EDF put the equity financing at 12 billion and 6 billion, respectively, or 18 billion pounds.
EDF also said it would commit to provide “limited” financial guarantees to CGN, particularly in the case of cost overruns related to delays, or in the event that European authorities challenge EDF’s “Contract for Difference” negotiated with the UK government.
It did not specify the size of these guarantees.
Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy said that without Hinkley Point, EDF would have no credibility in trying to win other nuclear export markets.
“This project is essential for the credibility of the entire French nuclear industry,” he told shareholders.
EDF said in its statement that since signing its agreement with CGN in October, talks with CGN had continued and that it had now finalised stable contract documents.
EDF, which is 85 percent state-owned, confirmed that the projected rate of return (IRR) on Hinkley Point is estimated at around 9 percent over the life of the project.
It said every six months of delay would reduce the IRR by about 20 basis points.
“We will do everything we can to make sure there is no delay,” Levy told shareholders.
EDF also said it expects it to take 115 months (9.5 years) between a final investment decision until commissioning of the first reactor.
The final investment decision has been delayed several times. Last month, French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron said he expected a decision by September.
This means that if the decision is taken in September, Hinkley Point would start up at the earliest in spring 2026.
In October, EDF said the first operation of Hinkley Point C was scheduled for 2025, which was already a two-year delay from its 2013 estimate for a 2023 start.
Levy also said that a planned 4 billion euro capital increase would be launched by year-end or at the start of 2017 if market conditions are favourable.”
Wealth brings its own rewards
… [Sir Philip] Green, the Monaco-based finance expert couldn’t get over public sector waste. “The process is shocking. There’s no reporting. There’s no accountability.” He assured Robert Peston: “You could not be in business if you operated like this.”
In fairness, this was years before Green sold BHS for £1, to a twice-bankrupted entrepreneur with no retail experience, Green’s family having previously extracted £580m in dividends, etc, pre-departure. And the BHS pension fund having somehow acquired a deficit of £571m.
Any minute now, one of those [celebrity] people on Green’s speed dial is sure to come along and explain, to the financially illiterate, how utterly irrelevant are these two unrelated numbers. …”
“Revealed: UK ‘is in the throes of a housing crisis’ “
“Observer survey finds 71% couldn’t buy without family help, and 37% say home ownership is out of reach for good:
David Cameron’s pledge to build a property-owning democracy is called into serious question by a landmark survey revealing that almost four in 10 of those who do not own a home believe they will never be able to do so.
According to an exclusive poll for the Observer on attitudes to British housing, 69% of people think the country is “in the throes of a housing crisis”. A staggering 71% of aspiring property owners doubt their ability to buy a home without financial help from family members.
More than two-thirds (67%) would like to buy their own home “one day”, while 37% believe buying will remain out of their reach for good. A further 26% think it will take them up to five years.
With affordable homes in short supply and demand for social housing rising, more than half of Britons cite immigration and a glut of foreign investment in UK property as factors driving prices beyond reach.
The findings cast doubt on the prime minister’s claim before last year’s general election that Tory housing policies would transform “generation rent” into “generation buy”. In April last year, as he launched plans to force local authorities to sell valuable properties to fund new “affordable homes”, Cameron said: “The dream of a property-owning democracy is alive and well and we will help you fulfil it.”
The poll – which found that 58% of people want more, not less, social housing as a way to ease the crisis – comes as the government’s highly controversial housing and planning bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday.
The bill will force councils to sell much of their social housing and curb lifelong council tenancies, introducing “pay to stay” rules that will force better-off council tenants to pay rents closer to market levels. Described by housing experts as the beginning of the end of social housing, the bill has been savaged by cross-party groups in the Lords. They have inflicted a string of defeats on ministers and forced numerous concessions.
The government’s flagship plan for “starter homes” has also been widely attacked on the grounds that the properties – which in London will cost up to £450,000 – will not be affordable.
With local elections and the London mayoral election on Thursday, ministers now face the dilemma of whether to back down and accept many of the Lords’ amendments to the bill or face legislative deadlock.
On Saturday night Labour’s candidate for mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who is putting plans for more affordable housing at the heart of his campaign, described the bill as “the most extreme in terms of housing in a generation”.
The party’s housing spokesman, John Healey, said: “Opposition to this bill now comes from across the board: from housebuilders, housing experts, charities and even Conservative ministers’ own council leaders, MPs and peers. It seems that government ministers are alone in thinking their bill is fit for purpose when it comes to tackling our housing crisis.
“Despite the string of concessions the government was forced to make, this remains an extraordinary and extreme bill that will lead to a huge loss of affordable homes to rent and buy. Ministers need to listen to the opposition coming from all sides and back down on their damaging housing plans.”
Khan’s rival, Tory candidate Zac Goldsmith, has pledged to build 50,000 homes a year by 2020 and to ensure that a significant proportion of new homes will be available only for rent.
The research by Opinium was conducted only five days after the Panama Papers revealed how a substantial portion of London’s most expensive properties are now owned by foreigners via offshore companies.
When asked what measures they would like to see implemented to restrict foreign ownership of British properties, 71% backed a ban on foreign owners buying British properties as investments or as buy-to-let; 60% backed higher taxes for foreign buyers involved in buy-to-let schemes.
A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said the government had unveiled the “most ambition vision for housing in a generation”, doubling the housing budget and investing £8bn to deliver more than 400,000 affordable homes.
“There are billions of pounds locked up in local authority housing assets so it is only right that when higher value homes become vacant they are sold to build new homes that better meet local needs,” the spokesman said. “It means every home sold will be replaced with at least one new affordable home and two for one in London.”
Was your dad a GI who stayed here? Were you born in this country? You can can claim non-domicile status and avoid UK tax
“Richard Caring, the restaurateur and clothing tycoon, has emerged as one of the major beneficiaries of generous dividends paid by BHS in the early days of Sir Philip Green’s ownership.
The Guardian has established that Caring, the owner of The Ivy and Le Caprice, was handed £93m in payouts from the retailer, which fell into administration this week – his share of more than £422m in dividends paid to shareholders including the Green family. …
… Caring is a UK-born citizen, has a London mansion known as the “Versailles of Hampstead”, and claims hereditary non-domicile tax status thanks to the US origins of his father, a former GI who settled in London after the war. This quirk enabled Caring not to disclose the existence of his Swiss or Monaco accounts to the UK tax authorities, and legally to avoid taxes on his capital held there.”
Austerity – not at East Devon District Council!
The employee statistics for EDDC make very interesting reading. It can be hard to work out what is going on, as structural changes such as the creation of Strata, or the transfer of traffic wardens to DCC, can distort the numbers.
However, between May 2015 and March 2016, the number of staff measured by full-time equivalent has increased by 23. And the number of new starters exceeds staff leavers by a whopping 34.
The cost of 23 full-time staff, when all the extras are taken into account could be of the order of £1 million per annum. Has this been budgeted for?
And, of course, the new HQ at Honiton is going to have to be substantially bigger, and therefore more expensive, to accommodate all those extra people.
Since relocation was first proposed, and the HQ space needs assessed, the number of full-time equivalent staff appears to have risen by about 50.
Tax avoidance isn’t the only problem …
“The Guardian has calculated that Green and his family collected £586m [from BHS] in dividends, rental payments and interest on loans during their 15-year ownership of BHS. Over the same period, the group’s pension fund went from a surplus to a deficit of £571m.”
So, basically, Green robbed the pension fund, avoided tax, got a knighthood from Labour and was appointed “Waste Czar” by the Coalition!
Interestingly, Journalist Will Straw spotted this anomaly in August 2010 when he wrote an article entitled “Philip Green is an odd choice for efficiency tsar” in which he wrote:
“Philip Green is clearly a savvy businessman, but his avoidance of tax raises questions about his suitability:
Earlier this week, David Cameron wrote in the Sun: “Cutting benefit fraud is a no-brainer. That’s why benefit fraud is the first and the deepest cut we will make.” Launching his one-sided crusade there was no mention of the tax gap, which dwarfs welfare and tax credit fraud by a factor of more than 10 to one. Cameron has now added insult to injury by appointing Sir Philip Green – a tax avoider – as his efficiency tsar.
David Cameron’s focus this week on tackling “welfare cheats” has underlined his priorities. The coalition is committed to an ideological programme of spending cuts worth £83bn by the end of this parliament – 60% more than planned by the Labour government. But, as the Guardian reported, there is just £1.5bn in benefit and tax credit fraud – the rest is due to system failure. Compare this with the £17bn on tax avoidance, evasion and non-payment identified in HMRC’s Protecting Tax Revenues report and you get a sense of whether we’re really “all in this together”.
Tax avoidance is not a crime, but it is certainly a poor qualification for taking on a new role as head of an “external efficiency review”. In 2006, using figures calculated by campaigning accountant Richard Murphy, the BBC’s Money Programme reported that Philip Green and his family had saved themselves nearly £300m the previous year living partly in Monaco, where residents do not have to pay income tax. …”
BHS fall out
“As the clothing chain BHS goes bust with the loss of nearly 11,000 jobs, it’s worth recalling the hand of Sir Philip Green, the man who will share a part of the blame for its bankruptcy.
Green bought BHS in 2000 for a sum of £200 million and controlled it for 15 years, though it was registered under the name of his wife Tina, who lived in Monaco.
When he bought BHS, its pension scheme was in surplus. By the time he sold it – it was in deficit. It is estimated that his family received more than £400m in dividends from the company.
In 2004 alone, Green’s family got a £40m dividend from BHS.
A year later, he collected a £1.2 billion dividend from Arcadia – the group that owned BHS – making it the biggest paycheque in British corporate history. It was more than four times Arcadia’s profits, and Green claimed the company was in great health and BHS had plenty of opportunities to grow.
To add insult to injury, the £1.2 billion payout wasn’t taxed, since it went to his wife in Monaco. The couple were accused of tax avoidance.
All this came after Sir Philip Green was appointed by David Cameron to ‘lead a review of government waste‘, in 2010.
And just a few weeks ago – as BHS teetered on the edge of bankruptcy and a pensions scandal was about to erupt – Sir Philip Green bought himself a third luxury yacht.
By that point it was no longer his concern – he had washed his hands off BHS a year earlier for just £1.
He said at the time:
“The business is handed over in a sound financial position with significant cash balances and banking facilities in place.”
If BHS goes bankrupt, it likely won’t meet pension commitments to 20,000 people. Clearly, Green doesn’t care now.
What advice on spending money did the government get from this man?”
“Anywhere but Westminster” newspaper column want to hear from us
Worried about the ever-widening democratic deficit in East Devon? Enraged by the secrecy and vagueness of our devolution deal? Fed up with an MP who will not speak about his constituency in Parliament and won’t even live in it? Celebrating the rise of independents at every level of local government in the district? Here is how you get it to a wider audience:
““Anywhere but Westminster is travelling the country to get a sense of British politics away from the Westminster bubble. During this period old fashioned two-party politics has been diminished and a palpable sense of unrest with the status quo has emerged.
For their new series, the pair are back on the road, hunting out radical new politics in some unlikely place. We would like you to tell us where you think they should go?
Share your views in the form linked on the webpage below or get in contact with John Harris (@johnharris1969) and John Domokos (@JohnDomokos) via Twitter.””
Who do you believe? Austerity doesn’t bite everywhere
“The three councils that have suffered the least from cuts in George Osborne’s controversial budget are represented by Tory cabinet ministers, a new analysis shows.
Wokingham, Surrey, and Windsor and Maidenhead have all seen the lowest cuts to their budgets despite being the three least deprived areas in the country. The areas cover the constituencies of five cabinet ministers: Theresa May, Jeremy Hunt, Chris Grayling, Philip Hammond and Michael Gove. The areas also received £33.5m in the transitional grant announced earlier in the year.
Cameron ‘buying off’ Tory MPs threatening to rebel over council cuts
The revelation, contained in a new analysis by Labour reviewing cuts between 2010/11 and 2015/16, is the latest embarrassment for Osborne following his budget in March. Cuts contained in the budget prompted the resignation of welfare secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who claimed the chancellor’s austerity was politically motivated rather than in the national economic interest. He further claimed that the budget favoured the affluent, who were most likely to vote Conservative.
Jon Trickett, shadow secretary of state for communities and local government, said the analysis confirmed that Osborne’s commitment to austerity was ideological. “It is disgraceful that the most deprived areas in our country are bearing the brunt of the Tory government’s ideological cuts to local services when the least deprived areas, which happen to be home to five of David Cameron’s top ministers, are seeing the least amount of cuts,” he said.
“To add insult to injury, these deprived areas did not receive a penny in the £300m transitional grant whereas the three least deprived received over £33m. Most people would come to the conclusion that the Tories are ruling in their own interest.”
Liverpool, Knowsley, Hackney and Manchester have had the most severe cuts to their budgets, it is claimed in the analysis. They did not receive any cash from the transitional grant, despite being in the top 10 most deprived areas in the UK.
It is disgraceful that the most deprived areas are bearing the brunt of the Tory government’s cuts to local services
Knowsley has suffered cuts of £739 a head. In contrast, the local area of the home secretary, Theresa May, is the least deprived part of the country but received £4m in the transitional grant and endured the smallest level of cuts.
Under cuts implemented since 2011/12 and those planned to 2019/20, Labour councils face a 21% fall on average, compared with 13% for Conservative councils, 18% for independent councils, 17% for those that are in Liberal Democrat control and 13% for those in no overall control.
A Conservative spokesperson denied claims that Osborne’s spending decision had been politically motivated, adding that the transition fund was targeted at those councils facing the sharpest change from the old centrally funded system to one in which councils have “greater financial autonomy”.
The government has introduced the localisation of council tax benefit, devolved responsibility for public health and the introduction of business rates retention. The spokesman added that figures from 2015 to 2016 could not be compared because of the changes.
He said: “As we continue to deal with Labour’s debt, our long-term funding settlement for councils is fair, and ensures that those facing the highest demand for services continue to receive more funding and have higher spending power than less deprived authorities.
“Average spending power per dwelling for the 10% most deprived authorities is around 23% more than for the least deprived 10% in 2016/17.”
It isn’t just Knowle where civil servants refuse to provide taxpayers information – MPs suffer too!
” The chairs of two parliamentary select committees have accused the top civil servant at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) of misleading MPs over the closure its biggest office outside London.
Iain Wright, chair of the business committee, and Meg Hillier, chair of the public accounts committee, have written to Martin Donnelly, the BIS permanent secretary, calling on him to release information on the department’s estimate of the costs of the closure of its St Paul’s Place office in Sheffield, which employs around 240 people. …
… this week the department was forced to admit that employing people in its Sheffield office costs less than a third of what it costs in London.
In an answer to a written question from the MP for Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield, the universities and science minister, Jo Johnson, said the annual cost of rent, rates and maintenance for an employee at the office in Sheffield was £3,190, compared with £9,750 at the headquarters on Victoria Street in London. …
… In the letter, the two committee chairs said the information relating to the reorganisation of the department that the permanent secretary had provided was “wholly unsatisfactory” and his answers in oral evidence to their committees had been “obfuscatory, if not misleading”.
“Your refusal to disclose the information we have sought is unhelpful, unjustified and is impeding our ability to fulfil our scrutiny functions,” they said.
“[We] are asking for precise information about the work done to estimate the costs of different scenarios in relation to the closure of the Sheffield office and transfer of posts to London. Specifically, could you please provide us with a copy of the document entitled BIS 2020 Finance and Headcount Outline, and any other document which has informed decisions relating to the Sheffield office.”
The letter asked that the information be provided before Donnelly appears before the public accounts committee on 27 April. …
… “Taxpayers deserve better from those working on their behalf. We expect the permanent secretary to respond swiftly and with clarity on the points of concern raised by our committees, which includes releasing the information we have requested. Only then can the decision to close the BIS Sheffield office be properly scrutinised.”
Wright, the business, innovation and skills committee chair, said: “The permanent secretary is accountable for the use of public funds and needs to demonstrate the financial rationale and evidence-based business case for the decision to cut jobs in Sheffield and centralise policymaking in London. The permanent secretary has a responsibility to enable us to scrutinise the running of his department and disclose this information.” …
… Donnelly stressed that the department had not yet reached final decisions about the number of roles in the Sheffield office that would be made redundant and the number that would be moved to London. He said there had, therefore, been no formal cost-benefit analysis of the decision to close the Sheffield office.”
East Devon Watch 