Council fraud: never get complacent or assume auditors know what they are doing

Here are three examples, accessed within 5 minutes on Google.

EX-PLYMOUTH:

“A former Plymouth council official has been arrested as part of a long-running fraud investigation.

Geoff Driver, treasurer and chamberlain at Plymouth City Council in the early 1990s and now Conservative leader of Lancashire County Council (LCC), was held as police probe financial irregularities at LCC. …”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/former-plymouth-council-official-arrested-in-fraud-probe/story-30449451-detail/story.html

CHESHIRE EAST:

A SECOND member of Cheshire East Council’s senior management has been suspended as a result of an internal disciplinary investigation.

Bill Norman, the council’s director of legal services and monitoring officer, has been absent from his post since April and has now been officially suspended.

The decision follows the suspension of council CEO Mike Suarez on April 27.

A CEC spokesman said: “The Investigation and Disciplinary Committee reconvened on Friday, July 14, 2017. The committee is considering allegations relating to the conduct of senior officers.”

http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/news/15416114.Second_senior_management_suspension_as_Cheshire_East_Council_investigates_misconduct_allegations/

ABERDEEN:

A councillor has been suspended from certain duties for six months.
Sandy Duncan, who represents Turriff and District, contacted Aberdeenshire colleagues who were due to consider a planning application for a wind turbine from a firm he was partner in.

He was found to have breached the code of conduct for councillors.
The Standards Commission for Scotland found he had acted inappropriately by using council facilities having been expressly warned not to do so.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-40366506

The DUP, corruption, transparency

“The government needs to get its business through parliament – that’s what governments do. So it’s no surprise that the prime minister is looking to bolster her reduced number of MPs with the support of others, specifically the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). But at what cost to the government’s reputation for fighting corruption?

Northern Ireland doesn’t currently have an elected government. Four months ago the devolved administration collapsed in acrimony following controversy about the ‘Cash for Ash’ scandal over the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme. The assembly election which followed didn’t change the fact that politicians from both nationalist and unionist traditions needed to agree to work together to restore devolved government. This hinged on demands for the DUP’s leader Arlene Foster to stand aside for the duration of the independent public inquiry into RHI scheme, which she has refused to do.

To re-cap: the UK’s prime minister is seeking support for her government in negotiations with a party leader who lost her hold on government over serious questions about the use of public funds.

There have been several recent corruption concerns in Northern Ireland. The National Crime Agency has opened an investigation, at the request of the local police, into the sale of Northern Ireland assets owned by the Republic of Ireland’s National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). Other issues relate to the management of public contracts for housing maintenance. Meanwhile, the funding of most of Northern Ireland’s political parties remains unusually opaque. All of this is hard to assess, but we have a responsibility not to just shrug and accept such things as a normal part of modern politics.

A possible deal to support the new UK government in parliament is not the only reason why transparency over who funds Northern Ireland’s political parties now matters to British politics. The DUP was used as a channel for hundreds of thousands of pounds to support the Leave campaign during last year’s EU referendum.

In the past five years, the UK has established itself with a reputation for global leadership in the fields of tackling corruption and its counterpart, promoting open government. The UK has risen to be in the top ten of Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index, the Serious Fraud Office has acquired one of the better anti-bribery enforcement records around the world, and this country has been a leader in the Open Government Partnership.

As the curtain fell of the last parliament, the previous government passed the Criminal Finances Act, with its ground-breaking provision for Unexplained Wealth Orders to freeze the assets of kleptocrats using the UK as a safe haven. Much remains to be done but worryingly, some of the gains of recent years could now be at risk. The long road to the arrival of the Bribery Act reminds us that there are those who will seize any opportunity to lobby to weaken it, and others who in difficult times for the economy will argue we should seek to attract foreign cash irrespective of its origin. …”

https://t.co/xarFNV5EDn

Anti-corruption independent takes on Home Secretary implicated in election fraud allegations in General Election

“Home Secretary Amber Rudd was one of the original MPs named in the Tory election fraud scandal. And she is in for a nasty surprise during her general election campaign. Because she will be forced to debate the issue live, in front of the public – whether she likes it or not.

Corruption everywhere

Nicholas Wilson is a banking whistleblower. He exposed millions of pounds of “unreasonable” customer charges by HSBC. That led to a ruling by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on 20 January this year to force the bank to pay back £4m to 6,700 customers after wrongly charging interest on credit card debt.

But Wilson believes the true amount HSBC owes is £1bn.

Taking on Rudd

Now, Wilson is taking on Tory election fraud, among other things. He has decided to stand as an independent MP candidate in his local constituency of Hastings and Rye. And he told The Canary that “anti-corruption” will be the focus of his campaign:

Nothing is done about corruption in the UK. I have been exposing the most serious infiltration of HSBC into every strata of UK life, from the BBC, secret services and every government department. The cover-ups by captured regulators, the [alleged] election fraud of incumbent MP Amber Rudd, the censorship of mainstream media. Nothing is done, and Labour are conspicuous by their failure to act. There needs to be a voice in parliament for whistleblowers and someone to hold corrupt MPs to account.

Wilson says he is “left-wing and a socialist”. And mental health awareness will also feature in his campaign. As someone who has spoken openly about depression, he is the perfect candidate to campaign on this issue. But Tory election fraud is going to be central, too.

Tory election fraud

As it stands, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is considering charges against 30 Conservatives, including numerous MPs. They relate to alleged expenses, like the infamous Tory ‘Battle Bus’, which some say Conservative MPs should have declared as local spending, but which the Tories actually declared as national expenditure. This means that many MPs may have breached electoral law over spending guidelines.

Wilson says:

I believe both the last election and the EU referendum were run on fraud. And if Channel 4 and The Sunday Times hadn’t spiked articles before the last election about David Cameron’s corruption, he would never have been re-elected.

Splitting the vote?

There may well be criticisms from many about Wilson splitting the Labour vote in Hastings and Rye. At the 2015 general election, Rudd had a not-unbeatable majority of 4,796. So it could mean the seat becomes a Labour target. But this doesn’t concern Wilson. He insists:

I keep repeating the same thing. Labour is not squeaky clean – that is probably why it doesn’t tackle corruption. It has been making a lot of noise recently about tax evasion, but so have the Tories. I’ve had more support from Tory (Jesse Norman) and SNP (George Kerevan) MPs. Nothing whatsoever from Labour, despite meetings.
Enough is enough

Wilson recognises the need to “get the Tories out”. He says he will support Labour to win the election and “would urge people in other constituencies to vote for them”. But in Hastings and Rye, he plans to tackle Tory election fraud, and corruption more broadly. And when asked why people should vote Nicholas Wilson, he simply says:

Enough is enough. There needs to be new influence in parliament.
And enough is indeed enough, especially when it comes to alleged Tory election fraud.”

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/04/24/the-home-secretary-just-got-some-really-bad-news-about-tory-election-fraud/

“There’s going to be a general election, so let’s talk about the Tory MPs still under investigation for election fraud”

“Theresa May has announced a snap election on 8 June 2017. But as the country prepares for another election campaign, it’s important to remember that MPs in her party are being investigated for election fraud for the 2015 general election. And given the mainstream media’s reluctance to report the issue, we need to ensure it is kept firmly on the agenda.

Allegations of fraud

12 police forces have submitted files to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over allegations that up to 20 MPs and/or their agents broke election spending limits in the 2015 election. The CPS is deciding whether charges should be brought. And a decision is expected soon – and is likely to come during the election campaign.

The allegations centre around the ‘battle bus’ campaign, and associated expenses such as hotel rooms. Many argue that the campaign promoted prospective local MPs in key seats. Under election law, any expenditure which promotes a local candidate should be covered locally. But the ‘battle bus’ and associated costs were declared nationally. Each constituency has a fixed amount of money it can spend locally. And including the ‘battle bus’ expenditure would have meant many candidates overspent.

Additionally, the Election Commission fined the Conservatives £70,000 for multiple breaches in connection to election spending during the 2015 campaign.

And there’s more

But it isn’t just the “battle bus” campaigns where the Conservatives have been accused of fraud. As The Canary previously reported, there are questions over how the party used social media and, particularly, Facebook, to target voters.

And a report by the London School of Economics has also warned [pdf] that Facebook targeting opens the door to electoral fraud:

The ability to target specific people within a particular geographic area gives parties the opportunity to focus their attention on marginal voters within marginal constituencies. This means, in practice, that parties can direct significant effort – and therefore spending – at a small number of crucial seats. Yet, though the social media spending may be targeted directly at those constituencies, and at particular voters within those constituencies, the spending can currently be defined as national, for which limits are set far higher than for constituency spending.
Implications

Theresa May might think she is avoiding difficult byelections if charges are brought in any of the constituencies. But she is equally taking a huge risk. There is a possibility that she will be running an election campaign while MPs are facing fraud charges. And then there’s the question of whether those MPs and their agents will run in this election.

Either way, the British public get to choose whether they want to vote for a party being investigated for fraud; and a party that’s already been fined £70,000 for election expenses breaches. But in order to do so, it is essential we do not allow the issue to be swept under the table.”

Source: https://www.thecanary.co/2017/04/18/theres-going-general-election-lets-talk-20-tory-mps-still-investigation-election-fraud/

Councils to administer a discretionary business rate relief fund

“Local authorities are to share a £300m pot for discretionary business rate reliefs to help firms facing higher bills due to next month’s revaluation of the levy, chancellor Philip Hammond has announced.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/03/councils-share-ps300m-business-rate-relief-fund

Question: How will this be monitored to ensure that officers and councillors do not favour their mates?

Builder lied to become unqualified chief of two south-west NHS trusts

“John Andrewes admitted fraud and gaining financial advantage when he appeared at Exeter Crown Court on Monday. He lied on his CV, claiming he had a PhD to become a chief of two NHS trusts.

Jon Andrewes, 63, admitted fraud and gaining a financial advantage when he appeared at Exeter Crown Court, where he is being sentenced today.

The Walter Mitty style health chief said he had a PhD which meant he could call himself a doctor.

He chaired the Torbay NHS Care Trust for nearly ten years, and was a former chairman of the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust.

He also earned nearly £100,000 a year as chief executive of a Taunton hospice in Somerset.

On CVs Andrewes claimed to have a management PhD from Heriot-Watt University in Scotland, as well as a ‘first degree in PPE’ and an MBA ‘with a financial specialism’ from Bristol University. All these claims are untrue. He also claimed to have been a partner in a technology firm before retiring early.
Andrewes, from Totnes, Devon, had worked as a social worker, probation officer and builder before using his fake CV to start his healthcare career in 2004.

In January, a senior NHS source said: ‘It took investigators a couple of days to discover the truth about Andrewes. Once they started looking at his claims closely everything started to unravel.

During one court appearance, the prosecutor called him a Walter Mitty. That is exactly what he was. It is amazing he managed to reach such top jobs built on a CV made up of lies.

‘It beggars belief that no due diligence was carried out when he was appointed to these NHS trust roles.’

Andrewes pleaded guilty to dishonestly making a false representation over his qualifications to make a gain as chairman of Torbay NHS Care Trust in July 2007.

He admitted a second charge of false representation over his qualifications to make a gain as chairman of the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust in Truro, Cornwall, in April 2015.

He also admitted making a financial gain for his role as chief executive of St Margaret’s Hospice in Taunton, Somerset, by deception in 2004.
He pleaded not guilty to a fourth charge of having a false degree certificate from the University of London which he is accused of using in connection with a fraud.

He will be sentenced today.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4286080/Walter-Mitty-NHS-chief-63-lied-having-PhD.htm

“Up to 80 per cent of new homes in London have been sold to wealthy overseas owners”

“London’s housing market has become a “safe haven” for corrupt money from across the world that is contributing to the crisis in home ownership in the capital, a report has suggested.

An analysis of the ownership of more than 2,000 apartments in London housing developments has revealed that up to 80 per cent of new homes have been sold to overseas owners.

Transparency International, an anti-corruption group, said that it had found evidence that 1,616 of the homes in 14 developments it examined in central London had been bought by individuals or companies registered abroad, compared with 450 registered to Britons.

It added that 40 per cent of the purchases, totalling £1.6 billion, were bought by investors from countries with a “high risk” of corruption.

Duncan Hames, director of policy at the group, said: “While Londoners find themselves priced out of the capital, many new homes are left unused by wealthy investors based overseas”.”

Times (Paywall”

Downing Street worried about election expenses scandal

“The police probe centres around allegations that the Conservatives spent more than legally allowed in marginal constitutencies during the 2015 General Election, and did not declare full expenses.

Up to six local constituencies could be forced into hurried by-elections following a police investigation into expenses fraud, senior Tories fear.
It is possible that party officials could face charges.

The police probe centres around allegations that the Conservatives spent more than they were legally allowed campaigning for marginal seats during the 2015 General Election, and did not declare full expenses.

Files are set to be passed to the CPS within the next few weeks, The Times reports, and it is believed half a dozen seats could be affected.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280950/Downing-Street-deeply-worried-police-probe.html

Is Trump using the Local Enterprise Partnership model?

This is spookily like the way our Local Enterprise Partnerships (and before that, the East Devon Business Forum) were created – with business people in the driving seat and councils as passengers without seatbelts!

“President Donald Trump met with a roomful of top CEOs at the White House – and says he tried to install other titans of industry on his executive council only to have them nixed as ‘corporate raiders.’

Trump met with a group that included Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink, retired GE CEO Jack Welch – whom he called ‘legendary’ – and other business bigs.

As if that weren’t enough financial firepower, Trump said that he tried to get other financial bigs onto the panel, which meets about once a month to advise him the economy, taxes, and regulations.

‘So many people have called – friends of mine in big business,’ Trump said, ‘and that wanted to be on the committee.’

Billionaire Stephen Schwartzman of Blackstone private equity firm, who serves on the council, acted as gatekeeper. “I said, ‘Steve, can we get so and so?’ Trump said, with the CEOs gathered around him.

‘Nope,’ Schwartzman replied. ‘What do you mean no, it’s big business, massive business,’ Trump pleaded, in his telling.

‘How about this one?’ Trump would ask.

‘He’s a corporate raider, these people don’t want to be sitting with corporate raiders,’ was Schwartzman’s reply.

‘He’s been very very selective,’ Trump said, adding: ‘We’ll be putting a couple more on this.’

Introducing the group, Trump hailed BlackRock investment company CEO Larry Fink for having boosted his personal bottom line through investments.

Trump displayed no reservations about asking some of the world’s most influential bankers about their preferences for peeling back bank regulations enacted after the financial crisis.

‘We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody to tell me better about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it, but we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank.

The White House billed the event as a strategy and policy forum.
The group’s official title is the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum. It has 16 members.

Absent from the event was Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick, who announced just hours before that he had quit, following pressure from consumers over Trump’s new immigration order.

Trump didn’t mention Kalanick during his public comments.

The Uber boss quit the council, even as the company is facing blowback for its decision to drop its congestion pricing during a taxi boycott meant to oppose the immigration order.

He made his decision known in an email to employees, where he argued against Trump’s new immigration ban.

‘Earlier today I spoke briefly with the president about the immigration executive order and its issues for our community,’ Kalanick wrote. ‘I also let him know that I would not be able to participate on his economic council. Joining the group was not meant to be an endorsement of the president or his agenda but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that,’ he added.

Trump hailed another attendee, his Commerce Secretary nominee, billionaire Wilbur Ross.

‘When I campaigned for office I promised the American people that I’d ask for our country’s best and brightest, and we have that. Wilbur is representing us,’ Trump said.

Trump said of close confidante and business magnate Carl Icahn, ‘Carl Icahn called up and he goes, ‘I heard you got Wilbur. Everybody calls him Wilbur. I’ve never heard him called – we just know him as Wilbur, right?”

Trump met the business honchos as he prepared to sign executive actions asking the Treasury and the Labor Departments to examine reforms to roll back regulations intended to make markets safer and protect consumers.
The actions would examine the ‘Volcker Rule,’ meant to curb speculation, AFP reported.

‘(We) believe that Dodd-Frank in many respects was a piece of massive government overreach,’ a senior administration official told the outlet. ‘It imposed hundreds of new regulations on financial institutions, it established an enormous amount of work and effort for financial firms.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4188962/Trump-meets-CEOs-says-ll-slash-bank-regs.html

(First and second) jobs for the boys – easy when watchdog has no teeth

“A Whitehall watchdog was accused of an extraordinary cover-up last night over the lucrative investment job given to George Osborne’s former top aide.

Rupert Harrison, nicknamed ‘the real Chancellor’ when he was Mr Osborne’s chief-of-staff, got a six-figure salary to work for asset management firm BlackRock two years ago.

But now it has emerged that the official appointments committee, Acoba, was reprimanded for approving the job without disclosing meetings he held with the firm while he worked for the ex-chancellor.

An investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office into the apparent cover-up denounced Acoba for a ‘shortfall in public interest transparency’. And last night Labour MP John Mann said: ‘The advisory committee is not fit for purpose and its chair must now resign.

‘There is far too much cosying up to banks. It is as if BlackRock had taken shares in the Treasury.’

The row comes as Mr Osborne himself faces controversy over his new job with BlackRock, which will pay him more than £200,000 a year to work as an adviser while he is still an MP.

His appointment was also waved through by Acoba and there are growing calls for reform of the committee and the rules surrounding MPs and second jobs.

Acoba is supposed to vet ministers and senior civil servants when they take jobs in the private sector. In the past eight years it has looked at more than 370 appointments without blocking a single one. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162438/Heads-roll-Osborne-storm.html

One tax for the rich and one for the poor … and guess who wins out

“Britain’s wealthiest people appear to get preferential treatment from HM Revenue & Customs and are not being properly pursued for outstanding tax bills, parliament’s spending watchdog has concluded.

HMRC’s failure to clamp down on rich tax dodgers is undermining confidence in the whole system, the public accounts committee said.

The highly critical report released on Friday examined HMRC’s specialist unit, which collects tax from high net-worth individuals with more than £20m. It found that “the amount of tax paid by this very wealthy group of individuals has actually fallen by £1bn since the unit was set up” in 2009 – even as tax receipts rose to £23bn.

Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said HMRC’s claims about the success of its strategy to deal with the very wealthy did not add up.

“Cosy terms such as ‘customer relationship manager’ and HMRC’s reluctance to be open add to the picture of arrangements that, while beyond the reach of ordinary taxpayers, are also ill-suited to the increasingly sophisticated methods the super rich can use to reduce the tax they pay,” she said.

“If the public are to have faith in the tax system then it must be seen to have fairness at its heart. It also needs to work properly. In our view, HMRC is failing on both counts.”

Tax officials calculated that there were about 6,500 high net-worth people in 2015-16, about one in every 5,000 taxpayers. In 2009, a specialist unit was set up to bring in more money from them.

MPs questioned the role of the specialist unit and some of its practices.

“We were not convinced by [HMRC’s] assertion that there is a clear line between giving its view on potential transactions and giving tax advice and we do not think there is enough clarity about what customer relationship managers can and cannot do,” the report says.

The committee pointed out that advice from officials to wealthy taxpayers was not recorded. “While calls from most taxpayers to HMRC call centres are recorded routinely, meetings and phone calls with high net-worth individuals are not recorded,” the report says.

The committee also highlighted concerns about “potential abuse” of image rights by top footballers and entertainers to minimise their tax liabilities. It confirmed that HMRC had “open inquiries” relating to the use of image rights by 43 footballers, 12 clubs and eight agents.

Committee members said they were appalled to learn that not all clubs were providing HMRC with the data it required under the terms of a voluntary agreement with the Premier League.

However, they praised HMRC’s managers for trying take action against the clubs. “We were encouraged by the evidence HMRC’s senior management gave to the committee on image rights and we look forward to news of meaningful action in this area.”

HMRC said the pursuit of high net-worth individuals had resulted in the collection of an additional £2.5bn in revenues. But it was unable to explain why the income tax they paid fell by 20% – from £4.5bn in 2009-10 to £3.5bn in 2014-15 – when the overall income tax take rose to £23bn.

The committee said about a third of the individuals concerned were likely to be under inquiry by HMRC for unpaid tax – with cases with a potential value of £1.9bn currently under investigation.

However, the report found HMRC had a “dismal record” when it came to prosecuting the very wealthy for tax fraud in the criminal courts.

In the five years to 31 March 2016, it completed just 72 fraud investigations into high net-worth individuals, with all but two having been dealt with using its civil powers. Only one case resulted in a successful criminal prosecution.

Of the 850 penalties issued to the very wealthy since 2012, the average charge was £10,500 – a figure the committee said was likely to be too small to act as a deterrent.

The problem was likely to become more acute because wealthy people were moving from off-the-peg tax avoidance schemes – the “high street equivalent of Primark or Next” – to bespoke “made-to-measure Savile Row” arrangements, the report says.

An HMRC spokesperson denied there was preferential treatment for the rich: “There is absolutely no special treatment for the wealthy and, in fact, we give them additional scrutiny, with one-to-one marking by HMRC’s specialist tax collectors to ensure that they pay everything they owe, just like the rest of us do. We have secured an additional £2.5bn from the very wealthiest since 2010.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/uks-super-rich-appear-to-get-special-deal-from-hmrc-says-watchdog?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

British government not tackling corruption

“The British government is failing to live up to promises to tackle corruption, according to the chair of the international development committee, Stephen Twigg.

On Monday the government rejected recommendations made by the international development committee (IDC) in the wake of a major anti-corruption summit hosted in London last year by the former prime minister David Cameron. These included the introduction of country-by-country reporting of multinationals’ profits and payments.

The government also disagreed with other recommendations made by the IDC in its October 2016 report, Tackling corruption overseas, such as reconsidering the role of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as the principle international forum for discussions and decisions on tax.

In its response to the report, the government rejected the assertion that it was failing to persuade UK overseas territories that they should create public registers to end tax secrecy. It insisted that almost all relevant overseas territories and crown dependencies have given their support to an initiative launched by the UK for the development of a new global standard on automatic exchange of beneficial ownership information between countries.

Twigg said that the UK Department for International Development (DfID) was working hard to respond to the challenges corruption presents in some of the most disadvantaged communities in the world, in places such as South Sudan, Yemen and Afghanistan.

“Unfortunately, the wider government seems to be falling short of the promises it made at the anti-corruption summit last May,” he said.

“Progress on the overseas territories has stalled, with the government showing it has no intention to lobby further for public registers of beneficial ownership.

“It is also disappointing that the government will not be making public the information it holds on how much profit UK-headquartered multinationals are making overseas and what payments they are making to national governments. Without this, citizens of developing countries will continue to be left in the dark about the extent to which corporations are able to make vast profits without paying the appropriate levels of tax. … ”

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/17/uk-government-accused-of-falling-short-on-pledges-to-fight-corruption

USA and China now concerned about safety of French components in their nuclear plants

The company’s defence apoears to be that they stopped falsifying records in 2012 so Hinkley C will be OK!

“Inspectors from the U.S. and other countries are investigating a decades long coverup of manufacturing problems at a key supplier to the nuclear power industry, probing whether flaws introduced in a French factory represent a safety threat to reactors world-wide.

Inspectors from the U.S., China and four other nations visited Areva SA’s Le Creusot Forge in central France earlier this month to examine the plant’s quality controls and comb through its internal records.

A string of discoveries triggered the newly expanded review: First, French investigators said they found steel components made at Le Creusot and used in nuclear-power plants across France had excess carbon levels, making them more vulnerable to rupture. Then, the investigators discovered files suggesting Le Creusot employees for decades had concealed manufacturing problems involving hundreds of components sold to customers around the world.

The disclosure of flaws covered up by Le Creusot led to two reactor shutdowns this summer in France, and in September authorities ordered Areva to check 6,000 manufacturing files by hand, covering every nuclear part made at Le Creusot since the 1960s.

“I’m concerned that there keep being more and more problems unveiled,” said Kerri Kavanagh, who leads the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s unit inspecting Le Creusot. Regulators are considering returning to Le Creusot or inspecting Areva’s Lynchburg, Va., offices to deepen their probe of the plant, a U.S. official said.

On Wednesday, Paris prosecutors opened a preliminary investigation into whether Le Creusot’s activities were fraudulent and dangerous, according to a spokeswoman for prosecutors.

“What we see now at Le Creusot is clearly unacceptable,” said Julien Collet, assistant general manager at France’s Nuclear Safety Authority.

Areva executives have acknowledged the records falsifications and blamed them on a breakdown of manufacturing controls spanning many decades at Le Creusot. Areva has since tightened its controls and is cooperating with the regulators’ reviews, company officials said. …

… EDF said initial tests of its Fessenheim reactor showed it is safe to operate even with the flawed steel on the steam generator. The French nuclear regulator is examining the issue, a process that officials said would take months.

Last week’s inspection has turned up a concern with one of Areva’s next-generation reactors, the European Pressurized Reactor under construction in Finland, versions of which are also planned for plants in China, France and the U.K.

Of the nine plants in the U.S. with parts from Le Creusot, at least one has a component with documentation problems, according to the NRC. Areva informed its owner, Dominion Resources Inc., that a manufacturing problem wasn’t detailed in final documents given to Dominion for its Millstone plant in Connecticut. Areva and Dominion say the discrepancy isn’t a threat to the safety of the Millstone reactor.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/problems-at-nuclear-components-supplier-spark-global-reviews-1481625005

The great LEP scandal – part 3: Government says LEPs should investigate themselves!

“Officials should be banned from taking cash from any public bodies they run following a Daily Mail investigation, Dame Margaret Hodge declared last night.

The former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said the law must be changed to stop board members benefiting from grants.

Her intervention came amid fury over the Daily Mail’s revelations that officials responsible for billions of pounds have been handing money to their colleagues’ firms.

The Commons Business Committee last night said it was investigating the ‘extremely serious issues’ – after the Public Accounts Committee also launched a major probe.

Officials oversaw the payments after getting places on boards called Local Enterprise Partnerships – or LEPs – which consist of business bosses and council chiefs and were put in charge of £7.3billion meant to kick-start economic growth.

Reporters found LEPs have made at least 276 payments to their own board members, their companies, or projects from which they stand to benefit. One received £1million for his call centre, while another got £13,000 of payments towards events at his family castle.

‘There is a quite clear and simple answer to all this – you outlaw it,’ Dame Margaret said last night. ‘Where you’ve got a conflict of interest, you have to choose – you either are a member of the board or you want to make money out of it.’

Last night the Government insisted LEPs should investigate any suspect payments themselves – and that this was not the Government’s job.

But MPs said this was ‘simply not good enough.’ Dame Margaret criticised the Government for failing to properly scrutinise LEP spending.

‘It is your money and my money that they are spending,’ she added.
‘When Government sets up these fragmented structures it always fails to put in place proper regulatory systems. It’s because the Government doesn’t care. What the Mail has uncovered doesn’t surprise me, what it does is depress me.’

Incredibly, there are currently no rules to prevent LEP officials from using the money they have received to award grants for their firms’ benefit, or to make decisions in secret.

LEPs have failed to account for at least £3.7billion of the cash they have been given by the Government, in their responses to Freedom of Information requests by the Mail.

The revelations are a major embarrassment for Chancellor Philip Hammond, who handed LEPs another £1.8billion in last month’s Autumn Statement. Meg Hillier, Public Accounts Committee chairman, has vowed a major probe into the payments and the ‘utterly unacceptable’ lack of transparency. She said the boards were acting like ‘a cosy little club’.

Iain Wright, chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee, said last night: ‘These are extremely serious allegations. LEPs have been given stewardship of massive amounts of public money. There appears to have been some appalling failings in accountability at some LEPs. We will want to know how they are spending public money and who is checking that they are spending it responsibly.’

Tory MP Philip Hollobone represents Kettering in Northamptonshire, the county where a banker on the LEP board received nearly £13,000 for his family’s Norman castle. He added: ‘The Daily Mail has played a crucial role in bringing these issues to national attention and is providing much needed scrutiny about how this money is being spent.

‘But it shouldn’t have been up to the Daily Mail. It is clear when LEPs were set up proper systems for scrutiny were not established. I would welcome further investigations from organisations like the PAC.’

The TaxPayers’ Alliance accused Government of ‘frittering away taxpayers’ hard-earned money’. Chief executive John O’Connell added: ‘Many of these cases quite frankly do not pass the smell test.’

Downing Street insisted it was ‘for those councils and partnerships’ to investigate ‘individual allegations’. But every council contacted by the Mail over suspect LEP payments has refused to investigate them.

Many councils and LEPs share the same staff, and when contacted by the Mail many councils offered joint statements with the LEP – apparently failing to understand they were supposed to be carrying out independent scrutiny.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘We expect these partnerships to maintain the highest possible standards.’

She said that after the Mail contacted the Government with its concerns it had taken action.

‘We strengthened the rules to make sure there was greater transparency,’ she added. ‘We have been very clear that we won’t hesitate to act if any LEP fails to comply with the new tougher standards.’

MORE CASE STUDIES

BRISTOL

A former Mayor took £48,000 for his ‘beer factory’ – and another £14,000 for his brewing firm – from the LEP board he sat on.

The grants were handed to enterprises owned by George Ferguson while he sat on the board. He was Mayor of Bristol until earlier this year.
But no minutes exist on how the decisions were taken and no documents indicating his interest in the factory and brewing firm appear to have been published by the LEP.

The £48,000 grant for Mr Ferguson’s Bristol Beer Factory was supposed to be to support local jobs, but there is also no publicly available record of why his other beer firm – the Bristol Brewing Company – received two other payments totalling £14,499.

Neither the LEP nor Mr Ferguson would explain the payments.

While on the board, another company the Mayor was a director of – Destination Bristol – was also paid £10,000 in consultants’ fees by the West of England LEP.

Five other payments – worth just over £92,000 – were made to a company owned by one of Mr Ferguson’s political donors, Alasdair Sawday. The former Mayor said he had ‘properly declared all his known interests’ and ‘studiously avoided being involved in any decision relating to my own or family interests’.

West of England LEP said Mr Ferguson ‘played no part’ in the funding decisions but would not comment on why no registers of interest were available for former members or why minutes of key funding decisions before 2014 did not exist.

LEICESTERSHIRE
A zoo was given a £550,000 grant for ape enclosures after its chief executive joined the LEP board.

Sharon Redrobe said securing the funding had been her finest achievement. And after the grant was handed out, her pay went from £85,000 to £94,000, a rise linked to the zoo’s improved financial performance.

Dr Redrobe, 47, became CEO of Twycross Zoo in October 2013 and joined LEP board the following summer. Less than a year later, a panel on which two of her LEP colleagues sat approved a £558,000 grant to help the zoo refurbish animal enclosures.

Twycross Zoo denied Dr Redrobe’s pay rise was linked to the LEP grant. A spokesman said: ‘There is no conflict of interest. Dr Redrobe played no part in the grant decision.

Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership also said Dr Redrobe had no role in the decision to grant the funds.

BRIGHTON
… fashion boss Susie Cave was handed a £53,000 taxpayer-funded grant from her Local Enterprise Partnership.

She was given the money after telling the LEP Coast to Capital she wanted to launch a designer collection but her business didn’t have enough cash.
By then, Mrs Cave’s designer clothes line – which she makes from the comfort of her home – had already been worn by celebrities such as Cate Blanchett and model Daisy Lowe.

But she told the board she needed more money to hire staff and launch a full collection for women ‘with money to spend on beautiful things’. It has now been launched, with dresses ranging from £575 to nearly £1,000.

Milliner to the stars Philip Treacy OBE and designer Bella Freud – Lucian Freud’s daughter – are among the company’s board members and advisers.
Mrs Cave, the business’s 50-year-old creative director, lives in a regency-era mansion worth around £3million with her husband Nick, the singer-songwriter, who is worth £4million.

Coast to Capital said: ‘This is a strong local business. It has already delivered the 5.5 jobs for local people it committed to at its premises on a Brighton Business Park. This grant, representing 25 per cent of the total investment, was awarded through a transparent process, with the proposal assessed against the published criteria by an independent panel.’ ”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003918/Ban-fat-cats-secret-deals-says-MPs-demand-action-Mail-exposes-old-pals-club-doles-public-money.html

Daily Mail investigation into LEPs part 2 – prepare to be shocked to your core

“Officials in charge of billions of pounds of Whitehall business grants have overseen hundreds of payments to their colleagues’ firms, the Daily Mail reveals today.

They were put in charge of £7.3billion of taxpayers’ money to boost growth and help small businesses, under the Government’s flagship Growth Deal scheme.

But on at least 276 occasions, the cash has been used to make payments to the officials themselves, their own companies, or projects they stand to benefit from.

The officials sit on boards called Local Enterprise Partnerships or LEPs consisting of local business bosses and council chiefs. These bodies have not accounted for £3.7billion of the cash they have been given by the Government.

Astonishingly there are no rules to prevent the officials from using the cash to award grants to themselves, or from making their decisions in secret.

In the first comprehensive audit of the billions spent under the Growth Deal, the Mail’s investigation found conflicts of interest over hundreds of payments. In some of the most extraordinary cases:

■ A board boss saw his own call centre handed a £1million taxpayer-funded grant – a quarter of the funding available for his area;
■ A multi-millionaire banker oversaw payments of nearly £13,000 to his family’s Norman castle for board events;
■ A board member’s multi-millionaire business partner received a £40,000 payment – to renovate a luxury barn on his estate that they both used as their offices;
■ A £60,000 grant intended for local companies was given to a Saudi chemical giant after its UK boss joined an LEP board.

Last night a Government spokesman admitted the Mail’s findings were ‘extremely serious’. And the evidence was branded ‘completely unacceptable’ by the Commons public accounts committee chairman Meg Hillier, who accused the boards of acting like ‘a cosy little club of private businesses’.
She vowed that the committee would carry out a full investigation of the Mail’s evidence.

Under the Growth Deal, £7.3billion has been allocated to LEP boards to spend on projects that will supposedly boost growth all over England.

The revelations will embarrass Chancellor Philip Hammond, who just last week pledged to hand a further £1.8billion to LEPs in his Autumn Statement.
But no rules were ever laid down by the Government about whether the private sector bosses who sit on LEP boards and administer the funding can award the money to themselves.

Many of them seem unaware that taxpayers’ money must be accounted for.
In many cases, the bodies have simply refused to explain payments, or been unable to provide any records of how decisions involving tens of millions of pounds of public money were made.

Because most of the bodies do not publish accounts, it took months of Freedom of Information requests to establish where the £7.3billion had gone. And the Mail has found that barely half has been properly accounted for – with at least £3.7billion unaccounted for publicly. Hundreds of grants have also been handed out in secret – so it is impossible to tell whether officials have benefited financially. Nearly £500,000 worth of grants have been labelled ‘miscellaneous’ or ‘redacted’ in accounts provided to the Mail.

One LEP refused to provide an account of its spending, and told the Mail to look at board minutes online – where all details of all its funding decisions were redacted. Another said it had promised all the companies it gave money to that their names would be kept secret.

It was last night refusing to name the 182 businesses that had benefited – meaning it is impossible to know whether any of its board members were among them.

From the figures that have been provided nationally, the Mail found 276 payments – worth more than £100million – which involved obvious conflicts of interest.

In many cases there are no public records of how the decisions were made. Where they are available, we found some board members had declared their interests – but had been allowed to sit in and even vote on decisions anyway.

Others do not bother to declare their private interests in registers which are supposed to be published online.

Until our investigation, four in ten of the bodies failed to publish a register of interests – even when asked for one by the National Audit Office. In addition, some board members were found to have taken fees for ‘consultancy’ work or other services – while publicly claiming they were not remunerated. Some of the fees have been paid through private firms or personal service companies – a practice which allows the beneficiary to potentially avoid paying income tax.

The supposedly low-cost LEPs have also spent a fortune on their lavish expenses – for hotel stays, foreign jollies, chauffeured travel, meals out, curries and burgers.

Although they are supposed to spend only £500,000 a year on their running costs, one has spent £24million in just six years.

In a report published earlier this year, the National Audit Office raised serious concerns about the accountability of LEPs. It said it had been unable to find details of the remuneration of senior staff at 87 per cent of LEPs, and said registers of interest were missing at four in ten of the bodies. The report said the Government’s ‘light touch approach to assessing value for money’ was at risk of becoming ‘no touch’ and criticised it for having an incomplete picture of how the bodies were operating.

Last night MPs said the abuses were shocking – and accused the Government of allowing a ‘staggering’ lack of accountability over the billions of taxpayers’ money.

And they have demanded to know why billions were handed to boards chaired by representatives of private sector companies – without any safeguards to stop public funds being abused.

‘It’s not at all clear that the right safeguards have been put in place,’ Meg Hillier said. ‘To have more than £3.7billion that is not accounted for publicly is just completely unacceptable. These board members need to understand that if they go on an LEP board, it’s not just a cosy little club of private businesses. We have already raised concerns about the accountability of LEPs and the lack of basic systems in place to make sure interests are declared and where money is being spent. This whole issue is of deep concern to us.’

Charlotte Leslie, Tory MP for Bristol North West, said the Mail’s findings were ‘diabolical’ and suggested LEPs were at risk of becoming ‘cosy clubs for local vested interests.’ She added: ‘This must be investigated fully.’
A Government spokesman said: ‘We take the Daily Mail’s findings extremely seriously.’

Last week, after being contacted by the Mail about the story, the Government published new rules. The spokesman added: ‘We want to see greater transparency on how taxpayers’ money is spent. We won’t hesitate to act if any Local Enterprise Partnership fails to comply with these new tougher standards.

The Mail has found that more than £100million has been paid to LEP board members and officials’ own businesses or projects they have a stake in.

These are some of the most shocking examples…

1. ESTATE AGENT HAD OFFICES RENOVATED FOR £40K

A board member’s business partner was handed £40,000 to refurbish a luxury barn on his private family estate.

The barn belongs to Richard Burton, the business partner of LEP board member Bill Jackson. It also happens to be where Mr Burton and Mr Jackson run their estate agency – called Jackson Equestrian.

Mr Jackson’s girlfriend also runs an interior design business, Horton Interiors, from the building – and reports online suggest her firm may also have been a beneficiary of the grant because it was used to carry out some of the refurbishment work.

Her company boasts of having undertaken ‘all work in the planning and feasibility stages, as well as securing grant funding’.
A news release on her company’s website added that it had ‘created a fun yet practical scheme for the offices, including whimsical wallpaper in the communal kitchen’.

After being fitted out at taxpayers’ expense, the barn now appears to boast luxury interiors, a design studio and oak signs, while a sculpture of a rearing horse stands amid manicured gardens in its front drive. As well as being the multi-millionaire heir of the estate, Mr Burton has a share in Mr Jackson’s business.

Mr Jackson did not disclose the fact that Mr Burton is his business partner – and married to his girlfriend’s niece – in his register of interests. He only declared the fact that the grant was ‘on buildings used on offices for Jackson Equestrian and Horton Interiors’. He insisted he had no financial interest, because the firms only rented the building.

The LEP has refused to provide evidence of how the funding decisions were made but said Mr Jackson, 71, who is the current High Sheriff of Herefordshire, has no involvement in funding decisions related to the redundant buildings scheme, and that they were made by a steering group. A spokesman added: ‘Neither Mr Jackson, nor any of his companies, has applied for or been a recipient of funding. Mr Jackson has no involvement in the allocation of any funds.’

Mr Jackson, said: ‘The grant was made to Longner Farms to which I have no financial connection. Jackson Equestrian, a company I am director of, rents part of the converted barns at £10 per square foot, which is a commercial rent and there is a lease in place. At all times I have declared my interest to the board in writing and have made no financial gain.’ Neither Mr Burton or Horton Interiors responded to requests for comment.

2. BANKER’S OWN CASTLE GOT £13K

A multi-millionaire banker received nearly £13,000 for his family’s Norman castle from the LEP board of which he is a member.

Eton-educated James Saunders Watson runs his family’s 20-acre Rockingham Castle Estate, alongside a lucrative career at investment bank JP Morgan.
Before Mr Saunders Watson joined the Northamptonshire LEP board in 2011, it made no payments to the estate. But within months of him joining, the LEP started giving money to public events there. This included more than £12,000 to sponsor dressage, cross-country, and show jumping competitions.
More than £400 was also used to cover the cost of canapes, elderflower presse, orange juice, mulled wine and mince pies for an LEP event at the castle.

This event was to ‘promote Northamptonshire’ – although technically, the castle is in Leicestershire.

The payments for the events were made directly to Mr Saunders Watson, who operates as a sole trader rather than through an official company. Mr Saunders Watson, 55, lives in the castle with wife Elizabeth, 51, and their three children.

The castle, started in 1071 on the orders of William the Conqueror, has been the family seat of the Saunders Watson family for 450 years.
In an interview with the Financial Times in 2004, he said: ‘It’s wonderful to have so much space. The part we live in has 11 bedrooms, with a further five available if needed, and there are 20 acres of garden outside – the kids love it.

‘Of course there are drawbacks. It takes ages to unload the car after we’ve been to the supermarket because we have to walk through two courtyards carrying everything; and it’s also an awful long way to the loo.’
Mr Saunders Watson is estimated to be worth £22million. He is head of investment trust marketing at JP Morgan.

There are no public records showing how the decisions were made, but Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership said Mr Saunders Watson had no role in the decision to pay money to his castle, which was made by officials and not at board level.

It said sponsoring the Rockingham International Horse Trials allowed it to promote Northamptonshire ‘as an investment and housing location to a national and international audience’.

A spokesman added: ‘The refreshments were best value as no charges were made for use of the venue. NEP has a key strategic objective to promote Northamptonshire as a great place to live, work and invest.’

Mr Saunders Watson said the horse trials sponsorship was ‘exceptionally good value’ and that refreshments ‘were charged at cost with the venue costs met by me, as part of my commitment to NEP and Northamptonshire’s economic growth’.

He said he had no role in choosing to pay the castle, adding: ‘Rockingham Castle is the oldest historic building and the only international equestrian event in the county so it is not surprising or inappropriate that an organisation responsible for promoting Northamptonshire would include Rockingham in its activities.’

3. SAUDI ROYALS’ FIRM GOT £60K

A £60,000 growth grant intended for ‘local companies’ wanting to ‘take on more business’ was given to a Saudi chemical giant represented on the board handing the cash out.

The multinational firm – which is one of the world’s largest makers of petrochemicals and makes profits of £5billion a year – was chosen for the growth grant after its UK director joined the LEP board handing out the money.LEP advertising stated that the grants would ‘support local companies looking to recruit more staff, enabling them to grow and take on new business.’

But astonishingly SABIC – which is based in Saudi Arabia and is 70 per cent owned by the Saudi royal family – was given £60,000 as a ‘wage subsidy’ for its British base in Teesside.

The global chairman of SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited is Prince Saud bin Abdullah bin Thenayan Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family +7
The global chairman of SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited is Prince Saud bin Abdullah bin Thenayan Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family
Paul Booth, chairman of SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited, continued to sit on the Tees Valley LEP board when the payments were made. SABIC – which stands for Saudi Basic Industries Corporation – employs more than 40,000 people across more than 50 countries.

The global chairman is Prince Saud bin Abdullah bin Thenayan Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family. SABIC UK and Tees Valley LEP said Mr Booth had no involvement in the funding decisions, which were taken by an LEP panel he did not sit on. SABIC UK said the application was made without Mr Booth’s knowledge.

A spokesman added: ‘Mr Booth was not involved in the decision-making process for making these payments. He and SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited did not operate under any conflict of interest or otherwise exert any inappropriate influence.’

The LEP said the grant had led to new jobs, adding: ‘There is no impropriety. Robust procedures are in place to ensure any potential conflicts of interest are identified and dealt with.’ ”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4000010/Exposed-Secretive-fat-cats-carving-7bn-cash-friends-family-including-40-000-renovate-barn-155-000-Jamie-Oliver-s-charity-restaurant.html

Politics Iceland style – Pirate Party poised for victory

“A party that favours direct democracy, complete government transparency, decriminalising drugs and offering asylum to Edward Snowden could form the next government in Iceland after the country goes to the polls on Saturday.

Riding a wave of public anger at perceived political corruption in the wake of the 2008 financial crash and the Panama Papers scandal in April, Iceland’s Pirate party looks on course to either win or finish a close second.

The radical party, founded by activists and hackers four years ago as part of an international anti-copyright movement, captured 5% of the vote in 2013 elections, winning three seats in Iceland’s 63-member parliament, the Althingi.

This time around, analysts say it could win between 18 and 20 seats. This would put it in pole position to form a government at the head of a broad progressive alliance of up to five parties currently in opposition.

The party’s leader and figurehead is Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a 49-year-old feminist MP, poet, artist and former WikiLeaks collaborator. Jónsdóttir says she has no ambition to be prime minister, pointing to the Pirate party’s horizontal structure. Rather, she wants to sweep away what she sees as Iceland’s dysfunctional system.

“People in Iceland are sick of corruption and nepotism,” she has said. She likens Iceland to a chilly North Atlantic version of Sicily, ruled by a few “mafia-style families” plus their friends, whom she nicknames “the Octopus”.

Of her political movement, she says: “We do not define ourselves as left or right but rather as a party that focuses on the systems. In other words, we consider ourselves hackers – so to speak – of our current outdated systems of government.”

This anti-establishment message has resonated with large swaths of Iceland’s 320,000-strong population, especially the young. On Monday Jónsdóttir and two party colleagues took part in an AMA, or “ask me anything”, on Reddit. Their wide-ranging discussion covered the EU (the Pirates would put Iceland’s membership application to a referendum), fishing quotas, whaling, climate change and the party’s name.

“We’re called the Pirate party in reference to a global movement of Pirate parties that popped up over the last decade,” parliamentary candidate Smári McCarthy explained. “Despite our name, we’re taken fairly seriously in Iceland, in particular because of our very aggressive anti-corruption stance, [and] our pro-transparency work.” …

… All too often in Icelandic politics, the party says, electoral pledges are reneged on after elections, with “the parties forming a government … hiding behind compromises in coalition – enabling them to cheat voters again and again”.

Saturday’s election was prompted by the resignation of Iceland’s prime minister Sigmundur Davið Gunnlaugsson. He became the first major casualty of the Panama Papers in April after the leaked legal documents revealed he and his wife had millions of pounds of family money offshore. Gunnlaugsson hadn’t declared the British Virgin Islands company.

This was not illegal, but the news sparked outrage and some of the largest protests that Iceland has ever seen. The ruling coalition replaced Gunnlaugsson with the agriculture and fisheries minister Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson and promised elections before the end of this year.

Gunnlaugsson’s Progressive party is now languishing at about 8% in the polls, barely a third of its score in the 2013 elections. Support for the Independence party, the Pirates’ rival for the position of largest party, seems to be holding. …

… Built on the belief that new technologies can help promote civic engagement and government transparency and accountability, the Pirates also advocate an “unlimited right” for citizens to be involved in political decision-making. It wants voters to be able to propose new legislation and decide on it in national referendums.

The Pirate party is part of a global anti-establishment trend typified by parties on the left such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, and on the right such as Germany’s AfD and Britain’s Ukip. As well as promising to accept Bitcoin as legal tender, Iceland’s Pirates have pledged to maintain the country’s economic stability. …

… Unlike some other anti-establishment parties, the Pirates have made clear they have no intention of doing anything likely to upset the economy. Analysts say there is little panic at the prospect of the radical party entering government.

“Across Europe, increasingly many people think that the system that is supposed to look after them is not doing it any more,” Jónsdóttir said. “But we know we are new to this, and it is important that we are extra careful and extra critical of ourselves to not take too much on.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/26/iceland-election-could-propel-radical-pirate-party-into-power

“‘Within hours of arriving, I was on a yacht with some investors, being asked to join the Freemasons’ “

“This week, the UK’s largest property event, the MIPIM conference, has opened in London. “#MIPIMUK is waiting for you,” tweeted @MIPIMWorld, the Twitter handle of the international organisation. Underneath was an image of exploding paintballs, overlaid with the words: “THE POST BREXIT BOOM – Are you ready?” …

… The conference this week will be a fairly sedate affair: property magnates with lanyards in expensive suits, stalls dedicated to the Midlands Engine and the Northern Powerhouse, tired corporate phrases like “driving innovation and diversification in the market” (tweeted out from that same MIPIM handle this morning), and so on.

The real fun is had at their annual event in Cannes, scheduled for mid-March, where estate agency professionals and wealthy investors cavort around five-star hotels and champagne receptions in the sunshine, while ruminating about the housing crisis many of them benefit from directly.

“Within hours of arriving, I was on a yacht with some investors, being asked to join the Freemasons,” one MIPIM attendee told me about his experience last year. Another described it as a “nonstop party” where she woke up one morning and couldn’t remember the name of the hotel she was staying in “until I looked at the monogram on my bespoke dressing gown”.

You meet some people who are involved in things that feel dodgy,” another property professional admitted.

“I work in property and I didn’t know about the layers of middlemen and secret deals that go on, particularly where London is concerned. Investors buy up flats before they’re built, then sell them on to other investors, but they don’t want the public to know they’re selling them again because that would drive down the price of the other units they own. So they pay off middlemen to do private deals with people they know, just to keep knowledge of the deals out of the public domain.” …

… Estate agents were happy to tell me that they’re seeing more foreign investors than ever offer to buy London flats traditionally expected to be taken by UK-based first time buyers “because their money goes twice as far now”, which is “great for business”. This is the “Brexit bubble” people feared would make the housing crisis worse after leaving the EU, and it’s fast becoming a reality. One presumes it’s why one of MIPIM’s main events this week is titled: “Extraordinary times, extraordinary returns?”.

Cast your eye over the speakers at MIPIM this week and there’s little to feel optimistic about. There’s Navid Chamdia, the UCL-educated head of real estate at the Qatar Investment Authority. He focuses “on direct acquisitions, joint ventures and co-investments in Europe” after spending 12 years at Ernst & Young “advising on the financing and delivery of over $10bn of global real estate and infrastructure projects”.

There’s Simon Mower, associate director at KPMG Debt Advisory who “has particularly strong experience in the real estate market… navigating the sector’s lender universe… structuring investment and development financing transactions for his clients.” There’s even one entertainingly named Mark Bourgeois.

Then, of course, there’s our astonishingly out-of-touch housing minister Gavin Barwell, who famously suggested that the solution to generational inequality was everybody’s rich grandparents skipping a generation with inheritance and giving the millions they’ve squirrelled away to their grandkids.

Barwell also made a speech two weeks ago in which he suggested the housing crisis could be tackled by making young people live in smaller rooms. “We want people to innovate – there are things the private sector is doing,” he told a fringe event at the Conservative conference. “I don’t know if anyone’s seen any of the schemes that Pocket [Living] have done where they’ve basically done a deal with the GLA [Greater London Authority] to get some flexibility on space standards. As a result they can offer a product well below market price.” A tarted-up way, of course, of saying Pocket Living has managed to twist the standards on what usually would be considered habitable.

For a government minister to openly celebrate this isn’t just irresponsible; it’s downright bizarre.

Britain has the smallest homes in Europe at an average of 500sqft for a one-bedroom flat and Pocket Living sells 400sqft flats – about the size of the average American sitting room, or the average UK hotel room – starting at £250,000.

This week, Gavin Barwell will speak at MIPIM alongside Marc Vlessing, chief executive of Pocket Living, whose background is “in City corporate finance”. If that doesn’t speak volumes about the housing crisis, the Government and the property professionals who pull the strings across the UK, I don’t know what does.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mipim-housing-crisis-markets-insiders-what-they-say-london-conference-property-magnates-a7369621.html

What Trump tells us about global corruption, UK tax avoidance and government policies

Our own rich MPs (of all parties) hide their personal wealth by putting it in “blind trusts” for the duration of their parliamentary careers, supposedly not offering their “advice” on how the money is invested …. yeah, right!

“… Donald Trump is offering himself as president of a country whose federal income taxes he gives every appearance of dodging. He says he is fit to be commander in chief, after avoiding giving a cent more than he could towards the wages of the troops who must fight for him. He laments an America where “our roads and bridges are falling apart, our airports are in third world condition and 43 million Americans are on food stamps”, while striving tirelessly to avoid paying for one pothole to be mended or mouth to be filled.

Men’s lies reveal more about them than their truths. For years, Trump promoted the bald, racist lie that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and, as an unAmerican, was disqualified from holding the presidency. We should have guessed then. We should have known that Trump’s subconscious was trying to hide the fact that he was barely an American citizen at all.

He would not contribute to his country or play his part in its collective endeavours. Like a guest in a hotel who runs off leaving the bill, Trump wanted to enjoy the room service without paying for the room. You should never lose your capacity to be shocked, especially in 2016 when the shocking has become commonplace. The New York Times published a joint piece last week by former White House ethics advisers – one to George W Bush and one to Barack Obama, so no one could accuse the paper of bias. They were stunned.

No president would have nominated Trump for public office, they said. If one had, “explaining to the senate and to the American people how a billionaire could have a $916m ‘loss carry-forward’ that potentially allowed him to not pay taxes for perhaps as long as 18 years would have been far too difficult for the White House when many hard-working Americans turn a third or more of their earnings over to the government”.

Trump’s bragging about the humiliations he inflicts on women is shocking. Trump’s oxymoronic excuses about his “fiduciary duty” to his businesses to pay as little personal tax as he could are shocking. (No businessman has a corporate “fiduciary duty” to enrich himself rather than his company.) Never let familiarity dilute your contempt.

And yey, looked at from another angle, Trump is not so shocking. You may be reading this piece online after clicking on a Facebook link. If you are in Britain, the profits from the adverts Facebook hits you with will be logged in Ireland, which required Facebook to pay a mere €3.4m in corporate taxes last year on revenues of €4.83bn . If you are reading on an Apple device, Apple has booked $214.9bn offshore to avoid $65.4bn in US taxes. They are hardly alone. One recent American study found that 367 of the Fortune 500 operate one or more subsidiaries in tax havens.

Trump may seem a grotesque and alien figure, but his values are all around you. The Pepsi in your hand, the iPhone in your pocket, the Google search engine you load and the Nike trainers you put on your feet come from a tax-exempt economy, which expects you to pick up the bills.

The short answer to Conservatives who say “their behaviour is legal” is that it is a scandal that it is legal. The long answer is to invite them to look at the state of societies where Trumpian economics have taken hold. If they live in Britain or America, they should not have to look far.

The story liberal capitalism tells itself is heroic. Bloated incumbent businesses are overthrown by daring entrepreneurs. They outwit the complacent and blundering old firms and throw them from their pinnacles. They let creative destruction rip through the economy and bring new products and jobs with it.

If that justification for free-market capitalism was ever true, it is not true now. The free market in tax, it turns out, allows firms to move offshore and leave stagnant economies behind. Giant companies are no longer threatened by buccaneering entrepreneurs and innovative small businesses. Indeed, they don’t appear to be threatened by anyone.

The share of nominal GDP generated by the Fortune 100 biggest American companies rose from 33% of GDP in 1994 to 46% in 2013, the Economist reported. Despite all the fuss about tech entrepreneurship, the number of startups is lower than at any time since the late 1970s. More US companies now die than are born.

For how can small firms, which have to pay tax, challenge established giants that move their money offshore? They don’t have lobbyists. They can’t use a small part of their untaxed profits to make the campaign donations Google and the other monopolistic firms give to keep the politicians onside.

John Lewis has asked our government repeatedly how it can be fair to charge the partnership tax while allowing its rival Amazon to run its business through Luxembourg. A more pertinent question is why any government desperate for revenue would want a system that gave tax dodgers a competitive advantage.

What applies to businesses applies to individuals. The tax take depends as much on national culture as the threat of punishment, on what economists call “tax morale”.

No one likes paying taxes, but in northern European and North American countries most thought that they should pay them. Maybe I have lived a sheltered life, but I have no more heard friends discuss how they cheat the taxman than I have heard them discuss how they masturbate. If they cheat, they keep their dirty secrets to themselves. Let tax morale collapse, let belief in the integrity of the system waver, however, and states become like Greece, where everyone who can evade tax does.

The surest way to destroy morale is to make the people who pay taxes believe that the government is taking them for fools by penalising them while sparing the wealthy.

Theresa May promised at the Conservative party conference that “however rich or powerful – you have a duty to pay your tax”.

I would have been more inclined to believe her if she had promised, at this moment of asserting sovereignty, to close the British sovereign tax havens of the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Bermuda and the British Virgin and Cayman Islands.

But let us give the new PM time to prove herself. If she falters, she should consider this. Revenue & Customs can only check 4% of self-assessment tax returns. If the remaining 96% decide that if Trump and his kind can cheat, they can cheat too, she would not be able to stop them.• Comments will be opened later

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/08/free-market-in-tax-grotesque-idea-donald-trump-tax-havens

“‘Secrecy’ over public spending exposed by Transparency International report”

“Secrecy and lack of information about UK public spending is so great that in more than a third of cases, the ordinary taxpayer can’t even know who has been awarded a Government or local authority contract, a new report has found.

Spending data was so heavily redacted, the campaign group Transparency International claimed, that in just one month a single London borough – Hackney – recorded £14 million of payments without revealing to the public who got the money.

Nationally, the Counting the Pennies report said that at least 35 per cent – more than a third – of published local and central government tender data did not even show who was awarded the contract.

Descriptions of what public authorities had purchased were, the report said, often so vague as to be “almost meaningless.”

And, it was reported, spending data was displayed in such a bewildering variety of different ways – “with 81,057 different column names used by public authorities to describe the money they have spent” – that the ordinary taxpayer trying to trace how their money was spent would be left baffled.

The result, said Duncan Hames, the director of Transparency International UK, was that people may be getting away with corruption in public office.

He said: “Open data is an essential tool in the fight against corruption. Real transparency significantly reduces hiding places for corrupt individuals and allows the public to hold the Government to account.

“There is a danger that although the Government are ticking the right boxes, the true spirit of transparency is being lost. The result is a missed opportunity to flush out questionable contacts and root out waste.”

The report analysed a total of £2.3 trillion of published transactions made by local and central government between 2011 and 2015. It concluded: “The UK has, in theory, one of the most open governments in the world, [but] the system is not working properly in practice.”

Despite Government guidelines calling for as much transparency as possible over public spending, the researchers found: “A significant amount of the transaction data that is being published appears to be redacted unnecessarily, in effect hiding the details of potentially substantial payments.”

In one London borough, which was unnamed in the report, £512 million of transactions – equivalent to 52 per cent of all transactions the council published – “were redacted so there was little information about the nature of these payments.”

The researchers put another London borough, Hackney, at the top of a ‘league table’ of public bodies ranked in terms of the highest value of transactions that were redacted in a single month.

In May 2015, the researchers claimed, Hackney recorded £14,050,025.66 spent in direct debits where the names of the suppliers paid by the council were redacted – leaving council tax payers unable to tell who had received £14 million of their money.

Difficulties in tracking how taxpayers’ money was spent, the report added, were compounded by the fact that in only 0.75 per cent of cases nationwide, (1 recorded transaction in 133), did the public body provide the unique Companies House identification number of the firm receiving its money.

Comments from Sussex University students asked to find out how councils and central government were spending taxpayers’ money by using the data they had published included: “If you’re a citizen you would simply give up.”

This was despite measures such as the UK Open Government National Action Plan, launched at the international Anti-Corruption Summit overseen by then Prime Minister David Cameron (at a time when he was under fire over his own family’s finances because of the Panama Papers leak.)

“These commitments are welcome,” the report concluded, “However it is now imperative that government works closely with civil society to make sure they are implemented in practice.”

Commenting on the £14 million spend where recipients of public money weren’t identified, a spokeswoman for Hackney Council said: “A large proportion of the figures listed were direct debit payments. We weren’t able to include the details of these payments in data collection at that time, but the value of the payments were included so that we could offer as much information as possible.

“Since April 2016, following improvements to our banking system, we have been able to provide the full details.”

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “”This Government is determined to deliver on its commitment to continue to be the most transparent government in the world and we continue to build on this.

“We are the first G7 country to have committed to the Open Contracting Data Standard on our central purchasing authority and we are now improving the quality and transparency of government grants.

“We are also improving the Freedom of Information Act, making more data available across the public sector, and will continue to make government more open.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secrecy-over-public-spending-exposed-taxpayers-money-government-corruption-where-is-taxpayers-money-a7327186.html

Chief Constables want complaints against them kept secret

“Britain’s most senior police officers are demanding that official complaints about their conduct and behaviour be kept secret.
The Chief Constables’ Council recently discussed moves that could be made to stop the public finding out about investigations into alleged corruption and misconduct. …

… David Burrowes, a lawyer and MP on the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: ‘There are many people like doctors and politicians who are named when allegations are made against them, so I don’t think police officers should have a special rule. It’s very important that law enforcers aren’t treated differently.’ …

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3794690/Keep-complaints-against-secret-say-Britain-s-police-chiefs.html

And what stance will our Police and Crime Commissioner, also under investigation herself, take about this one? Agree, so that future PCCs could be included in anonymity? Or prefer the disinfectant of sunlight?

And what about representatives on Police Panels? Hide away the dirty linen or wash it for all to see?