Good to see EDDC Independents Leader Ben Ingham talking today at the Green Party South-West conference on the Local Enterprise Partnership devolution fiasco and at a workshop about Green and Independent co-operation.
This is the way politics should and will go.
“An internal report, seen by the BBC, shows Cornwall Council has issued more than 500 contracts with a value of £145m without tendering them .” …
… An internal report seen by the BBC reveals that, since 2009, the authority has granted more than 500 so-called “exemptions” with a contract value in excess of £145m. There are strict rules on exempting contracts from tendering – and the document suggests these aren’t always being properly followed.
The council said that, ideally, it limited the use of exemptions and it recognised their use retrospectively should be avoided. It added it was taking steps to address this.”
BBC Devon Live website headlines today.
Doesn’t auger well for devolution scrutiny in The Dutchy!
The staggering arrogance leaves Owl stunned (but not for long). Though, no doubt the Government, Mr Hindley and the LEP see no problem.
“The Millfields Trust’s state-of-the-art Genesis building received the Community Benefit award at the prestigious RICS South West Awards 2016 held at Cheltenham Racecourse. …
… The pioneering, ERDF and Heart of the South West LEP’s Growing Places funded building was designed to create employment and serve the local community in one of the most deprived areas of Plymouth. It comprises of flexible workspaces, meeting rooms, a full height internal atrium and Plymouth’s first living walls. …
… “Steve Hindley, Chair of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HotSW LEP) said: “Genesis is a great example of development that benefits the local environment as well as the community by providing much-needed employment space with and original and eye-catching architectural design. The project is an exemplar of the LEP’s Growing Places Fund, which is designed to unlock growth and create new jobs.
“As Chair of Midas – the contractor for the project – as well as being Chair of the LEP – which has the strategic mission to generate funding – I am doubly proud to be part of this new asset to Plymouth’s city-scape.”
“Andy Burnham, who wants to be Labour’s Manchester mayoral candidate, has called on George Osborne to take action over what he called a £1bn black hole in the northern powerhouse initiative.
Analysis of public services finances across Greater Manchester has found that a £1bn shortfall would emerge over the course of this parliament. Central government grants to the region’s 10 councils will fall by £836m between 2015 and 2020, and Manchester city council is set to lose £163m by 2019/20, according to Burnham.
The region’s NHS trusts face a combined deficit of £115m, the budget of Greater Manchester police will fall by an estimated £34m over the five years, and post-16 education funding has been cut by £2m this year.
Burnham told Osborne: “You have one more budget before the new mayor takes office to fix this hole in our roof and balance the books. Your legacy as chancellor can go in two ways: as the one who truly changed the fortunes of the north; or one who perpetrated the most elaborate con in British political history. I urge you to choose the former and work with me to make it a success.”
The former health secretary said that given the north’s overcrowded roads and poor rail links, it was impossible to conclude that Crossrail 2 – which would run diagonally across London – was the UK’s highest strategic transport priority.
“I call on you to look again at this and urgently allocate the funding for a modern, high-speed rail system linking the cities of northern England,” Burnham said.
“I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that your commitment to the north is real. But people here are not daft – they now want actions, not clever slogans.”
In his budget in March, Osborne committed £60m to develop an improved east-west rail link to reduce journey times from 50 minutes to about 30 minutes between Leeds and Manchester, as well as £75m to develop plans for an 18-mile road tunnel under the Peak District to cut journey times between Manchester and London.
However, funding has only been put forward to draw up plans rather than as any commitment to building either project.”
Government Response to CLG Select Committee Report: “Devolution: the next five years and beyond”
Many, many recommendations, few of which the government is taking on board.
Worth the read.
For example:
“Recommendations 15 / 16:
for devolution to take root and fulfil its aims, it needs to
involve and engage the people it is designed to benefit. There has been a consistent very significant lack of public consultation, engagement and communication at all stages of
the deal-making process. This is due to areas having limited time in the run up to the 4 September deadline. The Government drove the first wave of devolution deals through
at a rapid pace (considered in more detail in the next section) which meant there was no opportunity for engagement with residents, or for residents to have their say on the principle of devolution or the framework of the specific deal proposed in their area.
Despite this, we believe that local leaders could have communicated more effectively and extensively with their residents about the deal process, the contents of the deal and how it would affect them. It should, for example, have been clear to any citizen what their elected leaders were seeking to secure for the area in negotiating a devolution deal with the government.
In addition, deals involving complex negotiations between national and local politicians do not lend themselves to public engagement However, from now on, efforts should be made to engage, consult and communicate with the public at all stages of the process—in the preparation of proposals, their negotiation and following agreement.
Strategies to involve the public may include citizens’ juries, public meetings and, within the NHS and local government, staff engagement sessions. Once a deal is entrenched and its reforms have had the chance to take effect, the public should be consulted on their experience of its practical effects.
We think it is too late to engage the public only once a deal has been agreed. While it is reasonable that the actual negotiations are not open to the public, steps should be taken to inject more openness into the process by publishing on the relevant authorities’ websites:
• Devolution proposals and the Government’s counter-offers, within a reasonable time of them being made;
• An outline of what is being negotiated; and
• Drafts of the deal, and the text of the final deal.
The Government should also publish the criteria it uses to assess and agree proposals so local areas can refer to these when drawing up their devolution bid. A similar level of transparency should continue to be maintained once the deal has been agreed.”(Paragraph 56)
(Paragraph 53)
and here is the government response:
“The Government agrees that devolution needs to involve and engage the public, and would see continued value in engagement once a deal has been agreed. Deals are iterative (as evidenced by the progress made by Greater Manchester) and the Government’s expectation would be that elected representatives in the local area should seek the views of their constituents through whatever means they deem appropriate.
The Government would expect devolution deals, negotiated between locally elected leaders and central government, to reflect what people in the local area want and need. Additionally, when establishing, or amending, a Combined Authority there is a statutory requirement to hold a public consultation, while local authorities in deal areas also remain subject to the Best Value Duty with its associated requirements around consultation related to commissioning in particular.
The Government does not share the Committee’s view that there should be assessment criteria to agree deals. This is because there is no blueprint for devolution proposals; the only stipulation is that the governance arrangements should be commensurate with the powers being devolved. All devolution deals are bespoke and will vary depending on the asks from local areas.
All of the devolution deals agreed to date include clear commitments from Government and local areas on implementing, monitoring, evaluating and ensuring accountability, and the text of all agreed deals has been published online. The Government is committed to continuing to publish deals as more are agreed.”
Click to access CM9291-_Select_Comittee_Response.pdf_-_Print.pdf
Hinkley Point: French unions put nuclear plant’s future in doubt
The future of the planned new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point remains in doubt as key French unions still oppose the project, BBC Newsnight has learned.
EDF, which would build the plant, had delayed a decision on the project in Somerset until the summer while it consulted French union representatives.
The company, which is 85% French state-owned, had hoped to win support from a committee of workplace representatives.
But the committee said staff had not been reassured about the plant’s costs.
Trade union representatives hold six of the 18 seats on EDF’s board.
‘Several reservations’
Jean-Luc Magnaval, secretary of the Central Works Committee that EDF consulted with, told Newsnight that staff feared the cost of the project would cripple EDF.
He said: “We have reservations about several aspects of the project: organisation, supply chain, installation, and procurement.
“The trade unions are unlikely to give their blessing to the project in its current state.
“We are not reassured by the documents we have received. We have been given a marketing folder, not the full information we require.
“We got the documents on 9 May – we are sending EDF a request for more explanations.”
On Monday French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron wrote to MPs on Westminster’s energy select committee to reassure them the French government remained committed to the project.
But Mr Macron added: “It is also necessary, in the interests of all, that EDF follows due process before committing itself to an investment of this magnitude.
“The consultation of the Central Works Committee brings legal robustness on the decision.”
Chinese backing
EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivaz also told MPs on the committee that he did not know when a final decision on the project would be made.
Earlier this month, French President Francois Hollande said he would like the project to go ahead.
Hinkley Point C, which would provide 7% of the UK’s total energy requirements, had originally been meant to open in 2017.
But it has been hit in recent months by concerns about EDF’s financial capacity to handle the project.
While one third of the £18bn capital costs of the project are being met by Chinese investors, Hinkley Point would remain an enormous undertaking for the stressed French company.
In March, Thomas Piquemal, EDF’s chief financial officer, quit after his proposal to delay the project by three years was rejected by colleagues.
In April, French Energy Minister Ségolène Royale also suggested the project should be delayed.
Much of this scepticism is the consequence of problems in constructing nuclear power stations to similar designs elsewhere.
A plant being built by EDF at Flamanville in Normandy, northern France, has been hit by years of delays and spiralling costs.
‘Red line’
Furthermore, since the company is nationally owned, the decision is also subject to political pressure.
A former energy adviser to the French government told Newsnight that while EDF did not technically need the backing of the trade union representatives, it would be very difficult, politically, to go ahead without it.
Yves Marignac said: “Going for it would for the government be crossing a red line in their relationship with the trade unions, which would make it really difficult for the government, particularly with the perspective of the next general election when they will need to get some support of the trade unions.
“Making a decision for the project is not possible right now. The political costs and the costs for EDF’s financial situation are too high right now.”
The report quoted in the post below is here:
It is a thorough and far-reaching document which most councillors should have read BEFORE they made decisions.
It makes the point that much has not been done and makes these points about what needs to be done:
WHAT ALL AREAS CAN DO RIGHT NOW
Consider at what stage in the devolution process they currently stand; Evaluate and reassert what outcomes devolution will deliver to the area;
Agree on what characteristics / principles good governance will need to embody in order to achieve these outcomes;
Check whether effective governance systems are in place that meet those characteristics
– whether those systems are transitional (to manage the process of negotiation and design) or permanent (intended to apply when devolution deals are fully in place);
Ensure that strong data and information sharing – essentially, arrangements for meaningful transparency – is in place to support governance;
Ensure that governance builds in opportunities for meaningful accountability and for the transmission of views and opinions between those in the wider public sphere, and decision-makers.
“The Centre for Public Scrutiny has just launched a new paper on devolution in England, writes Ed Hammond.
Our report, Cards on the table suggests the different stages that local areas will have to go through in agreeing and implementing a devolution deals – highlighting the fact that there is a sequence to the process, with each stage in that sequence demanding its own unique governance response. Many of these responses focus on the need to bring in the wider member corps, and the public, to discussions on devolution and its outcomes.
Member and public involvement is critical to the success of English devolution, but it is an element that until now many areas have filed away as “too difficult”. It never seems to be quite the right time to do it. Too early, and plans and proposals may be too vague. Too late, and the decisions may already have been made. In between, many of the negotiations with government are required – by government – to be private. What space is there?
We think that there is more space than you might think, but to take advantage of the opportunities requires a different mindset to that which has been prevalent up until now. Primarily, there are big opportunities to engage non-executive councillors and the public at the earliest stage – to talk to them about “the place” and what they want it to look like in the future. Having discussions with a wide group of people about the future, and their place in that future, helps to do three things:
It places those aspirations front and centre when it comes to working up more concrete plans for devolution;
It frames the future debate and the way that proposals can be presented to government. A proposal for devolved powers which ultimately derives from a local conversation about what devolution might be able to achieve could end up more robust than one which is based on a discussion amongst a comparatively small number of elected councillors and officers;
It engages with the art of what is politically possible. Early discussion of proposals – even using those discussions to frame what the proposals look like – makes it more likely that they will be grounded in reality. Such discussions will highlight where a gap may exist between public expectations and reality – allowing politicians to act to bridge this gap.” …
http://www.lgiu.org.uk/2016/05/23/viewpoint-public-involvement-strengthens-the-devolution-hand/
A report by Totnes (Green) DCC councillor Robert Vine
“Here’s the webcast of the County Council Annual Meeting where the Leader, John Hart, has a serious rethink about whether to keep supporting the Devolution Bid. Watch from 01:04:00 to 01:12:45 or click “13: Cabinet Member Reports” in the right margin.
In the Minutes it says “Councillor Hart commented, as requested by Councillor Greenslade, on progress with the HOSW devolution bid and advised that a response to repeated requests for a meeting with the Minister to discuss the HOSW bid was still awaited. He recognised the increasing concerns expressed over the imposition of a Mayoral system about which as yet there was no clarification and reiterated his view that any final proposal must be beneficial to Devon.”
In the webcast he is a lot more outspoken…
Council – Thu, 12th May 2016 – 2:15 pm – Devon County Council Webcasting
http://www.devoncc.public-i.tv/core/share/open/webcast/0/0/0/222091/222091/webcast/0/0/0
Indeed Councillor Hart is scathing about current devolution deals – he calls them “an absolute shambles”, says he can see nothing good in current deals that ALL require a Mayor to release money (around £30 million) which is guaranteed only for 5 years [though documents are drafted for 30 years].
He said he had three times asked for a meeting with the Minister and only after doing TV interviews about his concerns, was he telephoned by one of the Minister’s Special Advisers ( who was, he said, probably about 25 and with two degrees and nothing else) offered a 15 minute meeting in London. He refused it and said he would not make the journey for less than a 30 minute meeting.
He did a good resume of devolution deal fiascos from Derbyshire to Bristol via East Anglia, all of them falling at hurdles that Owl, and many others, had seen coming as soon as we learned what was going on.
He mentioned business rates – the raising of which was another carrot being dangled at LEPs, but pointed out they could only be raised by a maximum 2p in the pound and only if the business community agreed.
It seems Councillor Hart will proceed no further without much more assurance about what’s in it for Devon.
One glaring omission from his statement was public engagement, which he did not mention at all.
Let’s hope he cannot be bought off by “weasel words”.
Unlike our own council leader who, given responsibility for housing (i.e developers) couldn’t sign us away quick enough.
“The Constitution Committee today publishes a major report on the Union and devolution. It warns that successive UK Governments have taken the Union between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for granted, without giving proper consideration to the cumulative impact of devolution on the UK as a whole. The time has come to change that.”
If we can’t get this right, how can we get English devolution deals sorted?
Could it be that jobs-for-the-boys really IS jobs for the boys?
“Although Manchester city council now has more female councillors than men for the first time in its history, nine out of 10 leaders in Greater Manchester’s constituent councils are men. The lonely woman is Jean Stretton, who took over Oldham in January. She is the first Labour leader of a Greater Manchester council since Baroness Bev Hughes ran Trafford for two years in the 90s.
“I think it does matter that no women seem to want to be mayor,” she said, while ruling herself out on the grounds that she has only just got her dream job. “I suppose we still might get someone putting herself forward, but it’s very late in the day [nominations for Labour in Greater Manchester close on 10 June]. I think that, while we do have some very good women MPs in Greater Manchester, they are mostly quite new to their seats and perhaps feel their futures lie in Westminster.”
In the 2015 general election, 191 women MPs were elected, 29% of all MPs and a record high. As of 2013, 32% of local authority councillors in England were women.
Stretton is optimistic that change is afoot. “When I first became a councillor in 2003, frequently the only other woman at a meeting would be taking the minutes. Now, my cabinet is fairly evenly split on gender. I’ve actually been criticised in the local paper for relying on an ‘old girls’ network’. Things are definitely changing for the better. It will just take time for those changes to filter up to the top.”
“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.
Post in Oxford University Political blog. This is specifically about the north of England but could be about anywhere where “devolution” is being rushed through at break-neck speed:
“From the beginning, it seems that both the term ‘devolution’ and the processes behind it – in contrast to the more bottom up approach in Scotland – have been conceived by and for Oxbridge politicians, local authorities and suited-and-booted business representatives. This has served to exclude and disengage the public, as the agenda is often seen and perceived as something remote from our daily lives. Indeed, it is fair to say that a lot of citizens have never even heard about the Northern Powerhouse, City Deals or devolution.
Like too many things in this country, these are policies conjured up in the corridors of Westminster, in local authorities’ offices, behind closed doors, or at exclusive events attended by the few. Imagine: attending the ‘Northern Powerhouse Conference’ held in February 2016, costing only £450: a real bargain for a programme which focussed only on business, with no inputs from civil society and third sector organisations, minority groups, or young voices.
Beyond this, the way in which City Deals have been put on the agenda seems only to reinforce the idea that devolution in the North has little to do with democracy, and more with the needs and wills of politicians. Indeed, none of the Deals that have been signed so far in Northern city regions such as Greater Manchester and Sheffield have been involved in any real process of consultation with the public from the outset. Of the elites, by the elites, for the elites, one would be tempted to dare say. …
… STOP TALKING TO EACH OTHER, START TALKING WITH EVERYONE ELSE
If we are truly devolving power to local people, where are the people? Charities and the third sector have been almost entirely excluded. Grassroots groups have been ignored. Minority groups, communities of colour, young people – not at the table.
From the beginning, there has been a politics of division and neglect – dividing rural voters from urban ones or squabbling between northern local authorities, or everyone from the political elite doing their best to either ignore outside voices or proclaim their own powerlessness in the face of Whitehall and Osborne.
This is not to say that local authorities in the North are to be ‘blamed and shamed’. They have been between a rock and hard place, with the government snapping at their heels, all the way through the process that led to City Deals, and in the end they did what they had to do: accept what was on offer, so as to avoid their cities and economies falling further behind the rest of the country.
However, at the end of the day, in order to work the new structures that will emerge from the Deals (including elected City Region mayors) will have to take root in the local communities, and have the people behind them—at the polls in local and city region elections; but also on a daily basis.
Local politics could, and should, play a key part in this, as an agent of change—but to achieve such a goal local authorities need to turn their attention not only to what the government wants, but also to their citizens’ voices. In many ways, last week’s local elections were a warning, shining light on how a continuing disconnect at local level could undermine the whole devolution agenda from within.
So we need more people involved, not because it is more just, or out of fairness, but because it is the only way to make sure the new processes actually function in the long term, and regional democracy – and the systems and communities it is supposed to improve – becomes a reality rather than a dream.
Changing the North can’t be done without the people who live and work there getting involved and participating in such a process. We need organizations and institutions to come together and imagine a new style of politics, one which is pluralist and inclusive, and trusts and empowers communities.
We need to engage young people, working people and communities of colour in new and exciting ways. The real ‘revolution’ of devolution as a means to achieve regional democracy ultimately rests in this, and not in the politics of catchphrases heralded by the Chancellor.”
This is by jo means an exhaustive list – just a random few picked out from mebdia this week only:
North East
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/decision-over-north-east-devolution-11331708
Hampshire
http://www.themj.co.uk/Hampshire-divided-over-devolution-deals/204042
East Anglia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-36285239
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire
http://www.machinery-market.co.uk/news/13904/Nottinghamshire-and-Derbyshire-risk-losing-out
Wourcestershire
http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/14484626.Worcestershire_may_have_to_re_think_devolution_deal__says_council_leader/
South Cambridgeshire
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/South-Cambs-leader-Ray-Manning-stand-blasts-City/story-29257354-detail/story.html
A Devon County Council website cites two recent avenues for funding:
“Learning and Skills: Developing Higher Level Skills (European Social Fund)
Posted on 11 May 2016
A total of £2.8m ESF funding is available in the Heart of the South West LEP area to develop and deliver a range of activities to support those least likely to enter higher education. There is also an expectation that … Continue reading →
Skill for Growth: supporting SME Development (European Social Fund)
Posted on 11 May 2016
ESF funding is available for projects in the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area for projects which support high-level skills and higher-value employment in the Smart Specialisation areas of economic activity through improving the labour market … Continue reading →
Now, doesn’t that rather give you the impression that our LEP has at least £2.8m – and maybe more at its disposal, thanks to the EU, to dispense in Devon and Somerset and that you should negotiate with them for a share of it?
Unfortunately, not.
Reading on you see that, yes, these funds are available from the European Union – but you can go direct to the EU to apply for them – with no guarantee of success and without ever involving the LEP or Devon County Council.
It seems that, increasingly, wherever funds are available that just happen to include Devon and Somerset, from whatever source and whatever the wider geographical area, it is attributed to somehow being available thanks to our Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership and gives the impression that they are somehow involved in both acquiring and disseminating said moolah.
Whereas the reality is that they, and Devon County Council, are simply acting as publicists of grant funding information via their web pages from third parties with no direct links at all to the LEP. Something anyone can do.
Owl could advertise that X amount of money is available in Owl’s hunting ground …
But is this added value? Is it transparent?
“On devolution:
“This is devolution by consent. This is not a top-down dictatorial decision from Westminster about how areas should be considered.
“It is saying to areas: you come forward with the best plan that local people support and local councils support, and the faster you do that, the faster we can act. But we don’t want to crowbar people into something against their will.”
So, Dave doesn’t even know that we can’t support something that
(a) we haven’t been consulted about – ever
and
(b) happens in secret anyway.
Bottom of the class there, Dave
On mayors as a condition of devolution deals:
“If you’re going to have extra powers and extra resources, you need to have the governance in place so that local people feel they can control it.
“There’s a strength in having mayors because you can re-elect a mayor that is doing a good thing, and chuck out a mayor that is doing a bad thing. So we do believe in reforming governance at the same time as doing devolution.”
Er, same again Dave: we are just wheeled in at the last-minute as voting fodder – and four years is a hell of a long time to wait if we find we have Local Enterprise Partnership backed dimbo – or worse, an opportunist out to make a quick buck for a bunch of very close mates.
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Q-PM-dictatorship/story-29270503-detail/story.html
“Decentralisation: Issues, Principles and Practice
University of Newcastle
“… The ad hoc, piecemeal and rapid process of decentralisation in England is generating a new institutional landscape.
Since 2010, institutions have been abolished as the regional tier was dismantled, new institutions have emerged, existing institutions reformed and new areas of public policy been brought together creating new arrangements involving Combined Authorities and LEPs with metro mayors to come as well as connections between new policy areas, for example health and social care (Figure 6). Echoing historical experience in England, this further episode of institutional churn, disruption and hiatus has reproduced many longstanding issues including loss of leadership, capacity and momentum as well as instability and uncertainty with negative impacts on growth and development.
The new institutional landscape is raising serious questions of accountability, transparency and scrutiny – the ‘achilles heel’ of decentralisation. Decisions are being made by a narrow of cadre of actors behind closed doors, involving a mix of elected politicians, appointed officials and external advisors.
Deals and deal-making are being conducted, negotiated and agreed in private by a small number of selected participants in closed and opaque circumstances and in a technocratic way. Decisions involving large sums of public money and long-term financial commitments are being taken without appropriate levels of accountability, transparency and scrutiny.
Although uneven in different places, many institutions and interests in the wider public, private and civic realms feel left out and marginalised. These include business and their representative associations (alongside the uneven involvement of LEPs), environmental organisations, further and higher education, trade unions, and the voluntary and community sector.
Equalities and representation concerns are evident in relation to gender and diversity. The wider public knows little about decentralisation of the governance system and is becoming increasingly disengaged and lacking faith in the ability of politics, public policy and institutions to make their lives better. Those better informed and engaged worry that power and control has simply shifted a little from elites in central national government to those at the local level.
Concerns that the decentralisation efforts in England failed in the early 2000s due to the limited nature of decentralisation on offer and lack of public engagement and support are mixed with fears that the current process risks repeating this mistake.
Accountabilities are lacking, weak and under-developed. Wider discussion, scrutiny and challenge by the public and/or relevant institutions have been largely absent. Anxieties are being articulated that the exclusive, opaque and technocratic way decentralisation is being conducted is reinforcing such concerns.
More inclusive, transparent and accountable ways of doing decentralisation need to be found, developed and adapted to local circumstances. Means need to be explored to allow and enable a wider set of voices to be heard and more interests and opinions considered in order to make decentralisation accountable and transparent and more sustainable.
International evidence illustrates that inclusive deliberation and dialogue supports better and more robust decision-making for public policy and more effective and lasting outcomes27. Decentralisation must not be seen as an end in itself but as a means to better economic, social and environmental outcomes for people and places across England and the UK. …”
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/curds/publications/documents/DECENTRALISATIONIssuesPrinciplesandPractice.pdf
“Your editorial (Local parties should grab the chance to reshape politics, 4 April) misses a very important trend in local government. Ordinary voters have been effectively disenfranchised by the cabinet system operated by local authorities, to the extent that dissent, even within members of majority parties, has been crushed. Residents are now looking to independent parties to represent their views in an open, non-partisan approach as illustrated by the “Flatpack Democracy” movement.
Creating even larger local government bodies, with elite “super-cabinets”, means that our rulers will be even more remote and less accountable. Promoting local government leaders to the “premier league” will have only one result: they will stop listening.
Richard Gilyead
Saffron Walden, Essex
• Imposing mayors on English cities, and the highly politicised “northern powerhouse”, are typical politicians’ solutions to their own economic failure. In sundry policy papers since the mid-80s, I sought to show that the problem with regional development is a voracious central government, as capital, income and the educated have been taxed and fiscally seduced to the south-east. The last thing we in the northern regions need is more political interventions.
Osborne is responsible for the most pernicious attack on the poorest regions, as the business rate revaluation was postponed for two years, massively subsidising London and taxing the poorest regions. Taxes continue to be applied less to profits and more to mere activity (rates, VAT, duties, unindexed capital gains), thus attacking further the poorest and subsidising the richest areas.
Rodney Atkinson
Stocksfield, Northumberland
• English devolution might transform local government leadership but it will have been diminished by the loss of its education services.
John Bailey”
“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.”
“Interim Head of Strategy and Operations
Competitive remuneration [nowhere does it mention what the actual salary is]
The Heart of the South West LEP is a strong and dynamic partnership between the private sector, local authorities, universities and further education across Somerset, Devon, Plymouth and Torbay.
We have established an impressive track record leading and influencing economic growth, job creation and prosperity across the Heart of the South West.
This is an exciting time to be joining a Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) – work is underway with our partners developing a devolution deal with Government and at the same time rolling out our pipeline of £500m of investments. Reporting to the Chief Executive, this role leads a small core team in the LEP and working collaboratively with a wide range of other staff in our partners.
As a key member of the LEP’s senior management team, the role also directs LEP strategy (and development of our LEP wide devolution productivity plan), investment programme management and ramping up our engagement and communications with stakeholders to ensure we maximise our impact whilst developing the partnerships needed to build the global distinctiveness of our economy.
The ideal candidate will have senior level experience of working collaboratively with public and private sector partners on economic development or strategic economic plans / programmes in a fast paced, high profile environment. Experience of facilitating cluster development in a similar organisation would also be an advantage.
Also sought is the ability to commence work quickly to support development work on our devolution deal; an initial contract (or secondment opportunity) for a year is on offer.
Please provide your CV and details of remuneration or daily rate sought, by email to janet.powell@heartofswlep.co.uk.
Closing date: 15 May 2016
The LEP follows Somerset County Council Equalities Policies”
East Devon Watch 