Category Archives: Devolution

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Hinkley C just got even more expensive

“The cost of building a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset could rise by nearly £2 billion, piling more pressure on the over-stretched finances of the French energy giant EDF, according to a report seen by The Times.

An independent analysis of the £18 billion project claims that Areva, the French company that developed the EPR reactor earmarked for Hinkley, is repricing the technology before a final investment decision, which it expects to be signed by EDF and its Chinese partners in May.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/energy-giant-is-facing-2bn-rise-in-hinkley-project-cost-cost-review-may-add-2bn-to-price-of-hinkley-project-350rcv06w
(article behind paywall)

No doubt in the repricing, there will be attempts to offload the costs elsewhere.

The next French presidential election is due in May 2017. How on earth is Hollande going to explain this away to his successor?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

LEP Conflict of interest? Not when you all share the same interest it seems!

We reported that LEP member Nicholas Ames (Supacat) used to work for Serco which has been handed a lucrative LEP contract:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/03/12/lep-conflict-of-interest/

We also reported that Supacat is moving into the nuclear industry:

https://www.nsan.co.uk/news/supacat-ltd-expand-nuclear

Now we hear that Serco is also involved in the nuclear industry:

“A consortium including government outsourcing specialist Serco has won a new framework contract from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to manage the UK’s nuclear warheads via the Atomic Weapons Establishment through to 2025.”

http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/stock-market-news/company–news/serco-consortium-extends-uk-nuclear-deterrent-contract

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Hinkley C: the damning views of its own French engineers

EDF dissenters urge Hinkley nuclear delay

nicosiamoneynews.com Wednesday, March 30, 2016

“Senior engineers at French utility EDF have called for at least a two year delay at the controversial Hinkley Point nuclear project in the UK and recommended a redesign of the reactor technology.
An internal white paper written by dissenting EDF engineers, which has been seen by the Financial Times, argues that Hinkley Point is so complex and untested that the company should announce a later completion date than the target of 2025.

The paper, circulated among top executives, said that the “realistic service date was 2027” due to the size of the project, continuing design modifications to the European Pressurised Reactor system and the “very low” competency of French supplier Areva in making some of the large components.
The white paper also made the case for a “new EPR”, calling on the company to redesign the current reactor technology to make it smaller, cheaper to build and less complicated.

A timely start-up at Hinkley Point, which will provide 7 per cent of UK electricity, is critical because the government has set 2025 as the date by which the last of Britain’s coal-fired power stations is due to close.
EDF said in a statement last night that it would stick to the planned timetable. “The date for the first operation of Hinkley Point C has not changed. It will be in 2025,” it said.

But experts say any slippage in that timetable was likely to mean having to pay companies to keep older plants running or even build more short-term, highly polluting diesel power.

EDF has been beset by internal tensions over Hinkley Point, with chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigning this month over concerns that the project could threaten the company’s future.

Critics have raised concerns over the £18bn cost, given EDF’s stretched balance sheet. Two other projects in France and Finland using the same EPR technology are both severely delayed and billions over budget.

The unsigned white paper was written after Mr Piquemal’s resignation by a group of senior engineers and other dissidents, according to people with knowledge of the document. The company plans to make the final investment decision on the project at a board meeting on May 11.

Doubts grow over hitting the zero-carbon target

According to existing plans, 2025 is to be a pivotal moment in the history of British energy. The problem is that while the closure of coal power plants is accelerating, the prospect of Hinkley Point opening by 2025 appears to be receding.

In the paper, the EDF engineers called for a joint “Franco-British project” to commission four to six “optimised EPRs” by the end of the decade that could be operational between 2028 and 2031.

One person with knowledge of the company likened the current EPR to the Concorde supersonic airliner, a technical marvel but a commercial failure. The new EPR would be “more like an Airbus”, the comparatively simple but successful passenger aircraft.

The paper also addresses wider fears that the Hinkley project will in any case not be completed by 2025 and might suffer years of construction delays.
One person on the EDF board who had read the white paper said: “Few believe that we can build this [Hinkley Point] by 2025 any more.”

Another person close to the group said that 2025 was set to remain the official target, but the final decision could incorporate a margin for error because even with a two-year delay the project would still be profitable.
Three people close to the company said that CGN, EDF’s Chinese partner for Hinkley, also feared possible delays, attempting to insert a clause so it would take on a lower financial risk if there were a large problem.
Nuclear options

Engineers believe 4-6 smaller, simpler power plants could become operational as early as 2028, only a year later than the backstop date for Hinkley. UK ministers should consider this option.

In the case of a £5bn cost overrun, despite EDF having a 66.5 per cent stake in the project, EDF would be liable for 80 per cent of the additional costs, according to a document sent by the EDF finance department to the board’s audit committee in January.

That figure could be subject to change as the final investment decision has not been made. EDF declined to comment on the number.

The Hinkley project is still likely to go ahead as planned. Three out of the four EDF unions with board seats are against the project in its current form, as well as at least one independent board member.

But the majority of the 18-strong board is likely to vote in favour of the deal in May, according to people close to the group. The company is 85 per cent state owned, and the government wants the project to go ahead.

http://nicosiamoneynews.com/2016/03/29/edf-dissenters-urge-hinkley-nuclear-delay/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Is our LEP already in the doggie dirt?

The more Owl reads about what our Local Enterprise Partnership should be doing and what it does do, the more it seems that the LEP inhabits a totally different universe to us where its own rules don’t apply

Check out this publication from December 2014: Her Majesty’s Government LEP Framework. And then contrast it with what has happened in the two plus years since it was published.

Click to access bis-14-1241-local-enterprise-partnership-LEP-national-assurance-framework.pdf

Here are a few choice highlights – let’s start with one that appears on the very last page of the document (page 17):

“Business cases must be published (and publicised) before funding approval decision is made so that external comment is possible. Opinions expressed by the public and stakeholders must be available to LTB members when decisions are being take.”

Does anyone recall being consulted about ANYTHING by our LEP? Has anyone SEEN a business case for anything?

And there is more:

“… 3.1 It is important that LEPs have clear arrangements in place which enable effective and meaningful engagement of local partners and the public. They should operate transparently giving people confidence that decisions made are proper, based on evidence, and capable of being independently scrutinised.
3.2 We expect LEPs to take a proportionate approach to sharing and publishing information, using the prompts set out below as the basis for determining what they release. We fully expect that there will be information which is not appropriate for publication – including information that is commercially confidential, and expect LEPs to use their own discretion in determining what shouldn’t be published. Our expectation however, is that the public should see that the LEP is applying similar standards of transparency as other public sector organisations over decisions it makes over public funding. Within reason we would therefore expect LEPs to:
• have a dedicated website through which local partners and the public can keep in touch with progress on implementing the Growth Deal, access key documents etc;
• publish their arrangements for making, and recording decisions, and for ensuring that papers, decisions, minutes, agendas etc are published in line with existing local authority rules and regulations [access to information, Schedule 12A of the LGA 1972, as amended by the FOI 2000];
• through their accountable local authority, ensure that Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulation requests are dealt with in line with relevant legislation;
• have a published conflicts of interest policy, register of interests covering any decision makers, and published complaints policy;
• ensure that there is appropriate local engagement – both with public and private stakeholders to inform key decisions and with the general public around future LEP strategy development, and progress against delivery of the SEP, including key projects and spend against those;
• publish arrangements for developing, prioritising, appraising and approving projects, with a view to ensuring that a wide range of delivery partners can be involved (see also Part 5 on value for money below);
• clearly set out the LEP’s priorities and mechanisms for maximising the social value of its investment funding and activities so that partners and beneficiaries can play an active role in the programme. …

… 4.2 The lead local authority, working with relevant officers will need to put in place appropriate arrangements for the proper use and administration of funding, building on the existing local government systems, and which fall under the annual audit of the local authorities accounts. The accountable local authority would also be responsible for ensuring that decisions are made in accordance with the local LGF assurance framework. …

… 5.4 Across both of these aspects, LEPs should ensure that they have robust processes in place which ensure all funding decisions are based on impartial advice. The arrangements set out in the local assurance framework will need to ensure a clear separation between those acting as scheme promoters and those advising decision makers will be maintained, so that the LEP is acting on impartial advice on the merits of (potentially competing) business cases.

5.5 LEPs should also ensure that arrangements are in place which support the active management of risk across all matters for which the LEP is responsible, including but not limited to propriety and value for money issues. This should include having a named individual of appropriate seniority who is responsible for the identification and management of risk.”

ANYONE SEEN THE IMPARTIAL ADVICE? Until recently, we had no published agendas or minutes, and even now we get only notes not full minutes.

But what can we do? Who do we tell? The government doesn’t want to know, it just wants an annual report. Our councils? No, they have gone into this with little or no consultation.

It is left to us, the public to attempt to hold these people to account. And how do they respond?

Listen to the deafening silence.

Billions of pounds being given to a few businessmen and even fewer career politicians, some of whom have heavily vested interests.

And the blame for this cannot now be left at the door of Labour or coalition politicians.

It is a national scandal that no-one powerful enough is prepared to call out. And who suffers – us.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Economy, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sustainability

“Five ways to power the UK that are far better than Hinkley Point”

” … Electricity demand is already falling. The Somerset site for Hinkley C was approved in 2010 but since then UK demand has already fallen by more than the plant will produce, about 25TWh a year or 7% of today’s demand. Due to repeated delays, Hinkley C is unlikely to produce electricity much before 2030, by which time six Hinkleys’ worth of electricity could have been cut from the national demand, according to a McKinsey report for the government.”

http://gu.com/p/4htaf

The article goes on to say that five different approaches – wind, solar, cost reductions, inter-connection and improved storage and flexibility – are a more rational scenario than Hinkley C.

Which of these alternatives is our LEP researching for our region – none of them. It is firmly committed to this government’s political decision to plough ahead with Hinkley C whatever the cost.

This is what happens when you put unelected business people, chosen we know not how and many with vested interests, in charge of a regional economy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

What is our LEP doing about preparing Plan B in case of Brexit?

It is possible they are doing nothing. We are not allowed to know – it is secret. Here is what some small and medium-sized companies are already doing:

“Above a factory floor of machines carving metal to within a millionth of a metre, Stephen Cheetham is preparing his company for the unknown: a British exit from the European Union.

Since the government announced a referendum on Britain’s future in Europe, Cheetham has deferred investment decisions, put off expensive hiring and even bought equipment with his own money to avoid straining the balance sheet. …

… smaller companies in the manufacturing heartlands, crucial to the economy and often inextricably linked to continental Europe, are formulating contingency plans that illustrate the risks facing businesses across the country and the steps being taken to mitigate them.

At the start of 2015, almost half of Britain’s private-sector turnover came from firms that employed fewer than 249 people, according to the Department for Business.

For Cheetham his “disaster plan” involves jettisoning nearly half of his 30 employees if a Brexit compounds the drag from an already slowing global economy at his firm in the English rural town of Hereford.

Across the nearby Welsh border, Gareth Jenkins, who runs a toolmaking firm, has identified which major customers in Europe are likely to abandon him should they have to accept higher costs or slower delivery times that might come from new border controls with EU countries if Britain leaves the bloc.

He has calculated the financial impact and says in a worst-case scenario he could lose 25 percent of his turnover. He plans to tell his 91 employees in the next couple of weeks that a vote to leave could force him to lay off a quarter of staff. …

… Adam Shuter, head of haulier Exact Logistics, is investigating whether he should set up a German office, which he thinks could cost less than the additional taxes and paperwork of serving EU customers from outside the bloc.

“For a small business, it’s quite a bit of investment,” he said. “It just adds a layer of administration.”

He is also gauging the extra customs costs his British customers might incur outside the EU, using non-members Norway and Switzerland as guides, and looking at how much it would cost to set up expensive software to handle border clearances.

… British importers also fear they will have to pay VAT sales tax when they take delivery of goods from the EU – rather than at the point of sale – making cashflow harder to manage.”

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/Reuters/UKTopNews/~3/-5hiZnmQ1Wo/story01.htm

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Rural communities, Sustainability, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Gateshead asks sensible questions before committing to devolution

“Town hall leaders in the North East are making a series of demands on George Osborne on a number of key issues as talks to devolve powers to the region continue after councillors in Gateshead failed to endorse the latest deal.

An agreement would see the North East handed a raft of new powers and an extra £30m in regional funding in return for establishing an elected mayor as part of the Chancellor’s Northern Powerhouse agenda.

But Gateshead Council’s cabinet voted last week to reject the proposals, sparking doubts about whether the deal could be made.

The region’s six remaining local authorities are now looking to press ahead, but are calling for “clarification and commitment” from the Government on a number of “outstanding issues” from the Government before deciding whether to give their seal of approval to the multi-billion pound covenant.

The North East Combined Authority has set out a list of these issues ahead of further talks with the Government and has delayed making a final decision until May.

Newcastle Council’s leader Nick Forbes, whose council has endorsed the deal, said at a meeting of the authority’s leadership board: “None of us would have had this deal as a starting point, but it is important that we take this first step.”

Helen Golightly, North East Local Enterprise Partnership’s chief operating officer, said the meeting “underlined the region’s continued support for devolution”.

She said: “There are still matters where the local authorities feel they need more clarification from Government. The North East LEP remains fully supportive of the devolution process.”

She added: “Devolving powers will give us more opportunity to help drive the economic growth our region needs to contribute our full worth to the UK economy.”

Outstanding issues include a lack of certainty over £30m a year funding over 30 years and the need to “rural proof” investment to ensure rural areas are not left behind. The councils are also awaiting confirmation on how the Government plans to devolve funding for sustainable transport. Leaders also want further commitments to ensure the North East is not put at a financial disadvantage in relation to Scotland.

Jeremy Middleton, North East LEP board member and a mayoral candidate for the region, said the North East Combined Authority’s politicians were “holding the region back”.

He said: “This delay means there is a very real risk that the North East will be left behind again.”

A Government spokesman said: “The Government is making huge progress towards rebalancing Britain’s economy and empowering local areas through the devolution of powers and resources away from Whitehall.

“This is a bottom up process and if any local authority in the end decides it no longer wants to be part of it, then we will continue to work with those local partners who do, in order to make this historic opportunity in for the North East a reality.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/devolution-northern-powerhouse-gateshead-knocks-back-george-osborne-over-devolution-deal-for-north-a6957206.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Devolution, EDDC, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Transparency

Cabinet Agenda – 5.30 p.m. Knowle, 6 April 2016 – a meaty mix of relocation and devolution WITH NO MEANINGFUL COSTINGS WHATSOEVER

144 pages

Minutes take up the first 31 pages

Relocation – pages 32-49
“This update is to advise on progress of the relocation plans and seek Cabinet agreement to further key actions”.
Appendix 1 – Floor plans Honiton HQ and Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment
Appendix 2 – Pegasus Life plan for Knowle Site buildings footprint
Appendix 3 – Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey results summary

RECOMENDATIONS;
“Knowle Site:
1. Note that Pegasus Life Ltd following public consultation exercises will be submitting its application for development of the Knowle site . The projected likely date of consideration of the application is July 2016
2.Note that Sidmouth Town Council has responded positively to the Deputy Chief Executive ‘s formal proposal to transfer the remaining Knowle Park to Town Council ownership together with a commuted sum and negotiations continue Honiton Heathpark
3. Note that preparations are underway by the design team to submit a planning application for new build Council offices at
Heathpark with a view to Planning Committee consideration in September 2016
4. Note that the new HQ design is moving from concept to detailed design of space allocations for desks, meeting spaces, storage, reception area, Chamber, member area, services and external works
5. Note that construction is planned to commence in November 2016 for a period of up to 12 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works with occupation of the new HQ targeted for February 2018
6. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive has again met with businesses and staff at the East Devon Business Centre to discuss and advise on project progress Exmouth Town Hall
7. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive and design team have met with tenants of Exmouth Town Hall to discuss their needs,
concerns and expectations regarding the refurbishment of the building and its impact on their operations including any disruption or temporary displacement
8. Note that the Council has issued Section 25 notices to end the tenancies of Town Hall tenants to be followed by negotiation of
new tenancies
9. Note that refurbishment is planned to commence in Autumn 2016 and last between 8 – 10 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works.

Other
10. That Cabinet approve the use of £47,040 of transformation funds for the additional scope required within the Electronic
Document Management System.
11. Note that the Council has appointed Interserve to provide the Pre Construction Advisory role through a two stage
competitive tender process based upon the CFSW Framework. As part of the second stage tender process, Interserve will be
asked to provide their firm fixed price tender for the Project Works later this Year. If in the event the received tender is not
acceptable a further tendering process will be carried out.
12. Note that there continues to be ongoing detailed engagement with staff and tenants regarding space allocation, twin site
facilities, team locations, internal design, fit out and operational requirements
13. Note that Members have received a presentation on new offices design and layout. Further presentations and discussion will be arranged as the project moves forward
14. Agree SMT’s decision to locate Housing Services in the main as well as availability of other front facing provision (Benefits,
Environmental Health, Planning) on the basis of the findings of the Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey with
residents (attached at Appendix 3)
15. Note the successful recruitment of a Relocation Facilities Manager post to prepare and oversee the physical relocation of staff and resources”
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF BUMPH ABOUT WHAT AN EXCELLENT IDEA RELOCATION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …


Devolution – pages 50 – 92

Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf

“To update members on progress of the Devolution Prospectus”
Appendix 1 – Governance Workshop Notes
Appendix 2 – Governance Workshop slides
Appendix 3 – Briefing key messages
Appendix 4 – HoSW Prospectus for Productivity presentation
Appendix 5 – HoSW Productivity Plan Workshop Meeting notes
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF SLIDES ALL SHOWING WHAT A WONDERFUL THING DEVOLUTION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …
AND ENDING WITH THIS WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF ALMOST TOTALLY MEANINGLESS LEP JARGON:

“Conclusions and next steps
The key step was felt to be the development of a vision and criteria to drive the development of the productivity plan and the
work streams within the devolution prospectus. Building on the 6 golden opportunities exploring
a) what will move us forward rapidly
b) what will stop us moving backwards

Need this vision to be developed and agreed by our Leaders before we do too much more work within the theme areas.
Recognise that we need to keep the pace.

Twin track process:
The Productivity Plan being the longer term vision of transformation irrespective of what devolution deal we obtain. It will be an overarching plan that will drive ambition for the area.

Devolution – will work rapidly with government to agree a Heads of Terms similar to the East Anglia devolution
model and push for an early deal.

We could commission our universities to undertake some research to explore the options for transformational change in our area to inform the development.

Action:
The PMO will be asked to develop a Next Steps document for comment on the development of the vision, criteria, and the framework and resources required to deliver a shared plan.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Devolution: the next 5 years – councillors should be ashamed of themselves for signing us up with no consultation

House of Commons
Communities and Local Government Committee
Devolution: the next five years and beyond. First Report of Session 2015–16 25 Jan 2016

Extracts

Devolution Objectives (Conclusion para 21)

“As set out above, our witnesses gave us many important and ambitious reasons for pursuing devolution, particularly so for health devolution. However, with the exception of increasing economic growth, we are not certain whether these are intended to be the measurable objectives of devolution and are not convinced that the Government itself is any clearer. We are also not satisfied that the Government has considered and identified how to measure the success of a devolution deal once in place.”

The Approach to Devolution (from para 24 and 25)

“….the current approach to devolution in England is overtly one of deal-making, which can be characterised as negotiations behind closed doors between central government and representatives of local authorities….
……Indeed, one of the consequences of deal-making is that devolution does not happen in a uniform manner; deals have so far been agreed with seven city regions and with Cornwall. Professor Pike described it as “very ad hoc” and “piecemeal”…..”

On Public Engagement (from para 51 and 52)

“We have been struck by the lack of discussion and consultation with the public in areas which have proposed, negotiated and agreed devolution deals.

At the question and answer session we held with residents during our visit to Greater Manchester, the vast majority of contributions, often made in angry tones, arose from the perceived lack of efforts by the combined authority to engage the public about the deal relating to their local area.

While many valid points were made, we note that attendees, having elected to attend the session, were not necessarily representative of all Greater Manchester residents who are likely to be less aware of devolution.

We were told that there had been a “complete, utter and total lack of democratic engagement”, “insufficient information” and that most people did not understand what Devo Manc was all about.

When we raised this with our Greater Manchester witnesses, Cllr Kieran Quinn, the Leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, said he fully accepted there could have been more transparency. Cllr Sue Jeffrey, the Leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, told us that Tees Valley had not consulted the public before signing up to a deal and Cllr Alan Rhodes, Leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, said they were talking about the deal in the media and would hold a public consultation once it was agreed.
…..Cllr Quinn reasoned that, as the deal was bringing new powers to local people, not taking them away, limited public engagement could be excused……….

Conclusion (para 56)

“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.”

Scrutiny (Conclusion para 77)

“As the DCLG says, the overview and scrutiny requirements in the Bill are an initial framework to be used as a basis for more robust provisions, which we believe have a role in fostering public confidence in the new arrangements, as well as balancing vested interests. These should be developed to suit the characteristics of the local areas as a result of deliberate efforts to hold active discussions at local level, with residents involved in designing new and more open methods of scrutiny.

Local areas need to give active consideration to how the mayor will work with the council leaders and how s/he will be held to account. Although the elected mayor is intended to be a ‘first among equals’, s/he may soon establish, or already have, a profile and position which makes this balance difficult to achieve.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Devolution confusion

Unfortunately, the Committee did not tackle the situation where a Local Enterprise Partnership has greater powers than the Mayor. Though, of course, it is likely that one of the politicians currently on the LEP will become the devolved Mayor and will serve himself or herself AND the LEP as well as their own councils and us the common people!

But what a spanner could be thrown in the works if an Independent stood and won!

“Potential for confusion
…
78. From what we have seen and heard, we are very concerned that the public will not understand who will be responsible for what in their local area.

The Devolution Bill makes a distinction between the powers of the mayor and those of the combined authority which translates into the mayor and the combined authority being responsible for different services.

For example, in Greater Manchester, the interim mayor is responsible for transport, but not health, which is within Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s remit.

Some witnesses argued that this is not a problem in London where the Mayor of London’s responsibilities differ from those of the London Boroughs. But Alexandra Jones, the Chief Executive of the Centre for Cities, said this will need to be tackled as part of the “public education programme” around devolution and Professor Copus said that “the mayor, counties and the districts have to be prepared to point people in the right direction”.

When we put our concerns to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, he said that it would be “for that mayor to make very clear the platform on which they stand and the things they are doing in office”.

Click to access 369.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

More alarm bells on devolution – from Parliament

The Government has announced a ‘devolution revolution’, transferring powers and opportunities to local government through a series of ‘devolution deals’.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill gives statutory authority to deals and enables some of the specific reforms the Government wishes to make, such as introducing directly-elected mayors for combined authorities. This inquiry set out to examine the contents of the Bill and, in particular, whether Greater Manchester’s deal is a model for other areas, but its scope quickly widened to a review of the way in which devolution in England is proceeding.

We strongly support the principle of devolution. We welcome the fact that, at the start of this new Parliament, it occupies such a prominent position on the Government’s agenda. We acknowledge the personal contribution of Greg Clark, whose support and involvement since 2010 has been key in driving devolution. We expect to see this commitment continue, and for it to be shared by an increasing number of Departments, over the next four and a half years.

We are acutely aware that all deals are at an early stage and need time to bed in, and that many devolution bids are still to be negotiated. We therefore expect to review progress by the end of this Parliament and at regular intervals thereafter. Although it was not the focus of this inquiry, in line with our predecessors, we will continue to press for fiscal devolution: our next inquiry will look at the plans to allow local authorities to retain 100 per cent of business rates, and we will review the progress made on fiscal devolution.

We have identified various aspects of the current approach that we recommend are refined and improved now. Otherwise, the policy risks being rushed and appearing driven by a purely political timetable. We see a role for scrutiny by select committees of the secondary legislation enacting deals and the Government’s annual report on devolution, required by the Bill.

We have found a significant lack of public consultation and engagement at all stages in the devolution process. People are keen to be involved; our public session in Greater Manchester highlighted residents’ strong appetite to be included and consulted. The public should be engaged in the preparation of devolution proposals, insofar as possible during the negotiations and once the results of a deal have begun to make an impact, and communicated to throughout the process. This is particularly the case for health devolution where the systems in place are complex, changes are consequently more difficult to understand and the public’s response is likely to be more emotional.

We also believe that the Government’s approach to devolution in practice has lacked rigour as to process: there are no clear, measurable objectives for devolution, the timetable is rushed and efforts are not being made to inject openness or transparency into the deal negotiations. We suggest various ways in which proper process can be ensured; for example, with an agreed timetable for the negotiation and agreement of a deal.

Once deals are up and running, there will be a complex division of responsibility – between local authorities, the combined authority and, in some places, the directly-elected mayor— which will not necessarily be apparent to the public. Responsibility needs to be determined in a way that makes sense to the public, and consideration of these issues should be a significant part of the deal-making process with the division of responsibilities clearly spelled out. We received no clear explanation as to how accountability under health devolution will work and have recommended that the Government revisits this issue. There is a need for a clear articulation of how health devolution will work.

We strongly believe that areas should be able to acquire further devolved powers over time. Where an area has asked for particular devolved powers but was refused, those powers should be available to it if they are given to other similar areas at a later date.

Our ambition is that, by the end of this Parliament, the Government and local authorities will reach the position of ‘devoylution by right’, with the Government having announced a package of powers that will be on o er to local government. is would be a starting point for even more ambitious and wide-ranging future deals and possibly a more comprehensive package of devolved measures agreed between Government and local government as a whole.”

Summary taken from:
Devolution: the next five years and beyond
First Report of Session 2015–16
Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 January 2016

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/369.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

And what do you know – EDF shoulders part of Chinese investment risk

“French utility EDF (EDF.PA) has agreed to shoulder part of Chinese partner CGN’s financial risks should there be delays or cost overruns in the Hinkley Point nuclear project in Britain, weekly Le Journal du Dimanche reported.

The newspaper cites a note by former chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal to the EDF board’s audit committee regarding the 18 billion pound project.

The notes says in the case of five-billion-euro cost overrun, EDF would have to finance 80 percent of it, despite having a 66.5 percent stake in the project.

In case of a six-month delay, state-controlled EDF would have to refund several hundred million euros of CGN’s initial investment.

If the Austrian government is successful in its complaint to the European Commission over what it regards as illegal state aid for the project, EDF would have to pay CGN 1.6 billion euros.

The newspaper also reported that CGN has a bigger say in the governance of the Hinkley Point project, including veto rights on any dividend payments, accounting, budget and board member pay. EDF was not available for immediate comment.”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-edf-britain-nuclear-idUKKCN0WT09V

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2016

Posted under

DCC, Devolution, EDDC, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Comments

4 Comments

All roads lead to Hinkley C?

One of the great mysteries of the HotSW LEP’s devolution plans is the fact that massive development is planned for Exeter/East Devon, but they don’t want to see the A303 dualled between Honiton and Broadway/Ilminster.

We are proposing a huge increase in employment and population, but the LEP is campaigning to keep the road single carriageway. It really is most odd that Devon County Council and the LEP don’t want to see the road dualled, despite ambitions for enormous growth.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

City regulators jittery about Chinese investors – watch out LEP!

L and H

The Sunday Telegraph Business has a front page story thaT deals with Chinese investors have been blocked by regulators world-wide “amid growing doubts over their ability to see through a deal”.  Deals for Chinese investors to buy merchant bank Kleinwort Benson and London City Airport have been abandoned recently.

Although most newspaper articles talk about the French (EDF) investment in the Hinkley C nuclear power station, 25% of the investment is to come from the Chinese. No deal has yet been signed, as it is contingent on the EDF deal being underwritten by the French government.

Add to that the fears that Brexit might cause knock-on problems for Hinkley C and, in the words of Laurel and Hardy:

“That’s another fine mess you’ve got me into, Stanley”!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Regional newspapers pick up story on criticism of LEPs – our LEP fights back

Unfortunately, no mention of our LEP members conflicts of interest and their decision to spend much of our money on Hinkley C nuclear power plan (several board members are involved in nuclear power-related work, one (Midas) is a major player in a contract for Plymouth Docks regeneration).

“A lack of transparency and insufficient resourcing are just some of the criticisms levelled at the Government’s flagship scheme to deliver £400 million of investment in Devon and Cornwall. But at least the media is waking up.

The findings from the new report on Local Enterprise Partnerships also highlight “confusion” about their role in local devolution deals, and difficulties assessing value for money.

The critical report from spending watchdog the National Audit Office, suggests that five years on from their creation, there is still some way to go to ensure LEPs are delivering the economic growth they promised.

But organisation’s operating in South West have welcomed the report – arguing they have made strong progress in the creation of new jobs, homes and investment opportunities in the region.

“The role of LEPs has expanded rapidly.”

The Coalition Government launched the Local Enterprise Partnership programme in 2010 to replace the UK’s nine Regional Development Agencies. Since then, 39 LEPs have been established, including fone or Cornwall and Isles of Scilly (CIOS) and for Devon and South West Somerset (the Heart of the South West, or HotSW).

The aim of these bodies is to boost economic development at a local level, using funding from Local Growth deals to support business and infrastructure improvements. But over time, the NAO notes, they have taken on a “significant” number of responsibilities, including positions on local transport boards and leading roles in devolution deals.

HotSW board member, Tim Jones suggests LEPs have faced a “whirlwind” of changes in recent years. He says this has contributed to a sense of “doing business on the hoof”, as the Government devolves more and more powers.

“The NAO report marks a good time to pause, reflect and make sure we are doing it right,” he said. “Now that the questions are being asked, it’s an opportunity to make sure LEPs are fit for purpose.”

“LEPs do not possess the resources necessary.”

The Government has pledged to make a total of £12 billion available to LEPs between 2014/15 and 2019/20. So far, Cornwall has received £60 million from this fund, with a further £150 million put forward by private investors, HoTSW has been awarded £195.5 million.

LEPs also have an influential say in the allocation of European funding, in the area. This amounts to roughly £470 million for the CIOS area and £92 million for HoTSW.

However, according to the NAO report, only 5% of LEPs surveyed felt they had sufficient resources to deliver the services and projects expected of them. And as they rely heavily on partnerships with local authorities to achieve their aims, the study warns many will struggle as cuts to council budgets take their toll.

Mr Jones said challenges around resources affect all LEPs. But he is not in favour of increasing staff numbers and returning to “the bad old days of big bureaucracy”.

“As an example, the demands around devolution have been huge, around half of the LEP team has been diverted to writing the devolution agenda,” he said. “But the expectations of government need to be managed against the resources that are available, rather than the other way round.”

CIOS chief executive Sandra Rothwell stressed her LEP is keen to make sure as much funding as possible goes to economic growth “not organisation”. “We are a partnership and we work with councils, chambers of commerce and businesses in developing and implementing strategies,” she explained. “Could we use more [resources]? Yes of course. But it should be proportionate to the scale of the programmes we deliver.”

“LEPs… are not as transparent to the public as we would expect.”

Management of LEPs currently consist of a mixture of private sector representatives and local councillors. The NAO report found that the proportion of private sector membership ranged from 45% to 80% across the 39 bodies.

It says the Department for Communities and Local Government has taken steps to improve LEP governance and transparency. But it suggests the department should do more “to ensure that the required standards of governance and transparency are being met”.

At the Cornwall LEP, four of the 16 board members are elected councillors, with remaining members coming from local businesses and other professions. Ms Rothwell believes that this is a fair representation of public, private and voluntary sectors.

She also stresses that the LEP reports back to local authorities on its decisions, and makes information about board members and their registered interests available online.

“Most of our resources are focussed on running an accountable process, because at the end of the day this is public money,” she added. “We were one of just seven LEPs in England interviewed in depth for this report and we received excellent feedback on our own systems and processes.”

At HotSW, six of the 20 board members are councillors – a ratio Mr Jones describes as a “healthy balance”. He also states that prospective board members face a “very rigorous” selection process.

“I think [the mix] has created an understanding about the needs of the business community, and improved their understanding of the needs of the local authority,” he said. HotSW also published information on board members and meetings on its website.

“It is not clear how LEPs fit into devolution.”

The NAO notes that ministers see LEPs as “central” to their plans for English devolution. But it claims LEPs are often “uncertain of their role within a more devolved landscape”, particularly in areas where their boundaries do not match those of the combined authority.

Ms Rothwell said CIOS, which leads on the employment and skills and business supports aspects of Cornwall’s devolution deal, is “very clear” on its involvement. “This one of the strengths that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly has in terms of focus and geography,” she said. “So we are in a slightly different place than other LEPs].”

The Heart of the South West devolution submission is still in the bid stage. As the name suggests, it corresponds with the area covered by the LEP, but Mr Jones said their role is as “an observer and a consultee” in the process. “There is some degree of confusion around the fact that it is not a complete deal… but it is being led quite rightly by the local authorities,” he said.

“LEPs are at the heart of driving local growth”

Both the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and the HotSW LEP maintain that they are well on their way to hitting their targets for growth, but it is “too early” to accurately measure their success. They also stress that the NAO report is a “general” comment on the LEP model, and not an assessment of individual bodies.

The DCLG argues the study “misses the point”. A spokesman said: “LEPs are pivotal to driving local economic growth and have an important leadership role in devolution. That is why we have announced this week a further £1.8 billion through a new round of Growth Deals, maintaining our commitment to a £12 billion Local Growth Fund over the course of the Parliament.”

LEP targets for 2020/21

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly LEP aims to:
Create 20,000 new jobs
See superfast broadband rolled out to 100% of homes and businesses
Build 13,000 homes
Support the creation of at least 336 new businesses
Upgrade the Night Riviera sleeper service

Heart of the South West LEP aims to:
Create 22,000 new jobs
Build 10,000 new homes a year
Reduce rail journeys between Plymouth and London to 2 hours 45 mins
See 95% superfast broadband roll out
Achieve partial dualling of A303/A30 corridor

Further analysis

Torbay MP and Public Accounts Committee member Kevin Foster: “The NAO report highlights the role our local LEPs play in economic development policy, but with this responsibility must come better accountability. It is right that LEPs can decide what reflects local priorities, rather than have them set by government or quangos across artificial regions that do not reflect our actual economic areas. Yet with the amount of money spent via them there needs to be clear measures to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money.”

Devon councillor and HotSW board member Andrew Leadbetter: “The Heart of the South West LEP has successfully enabled the private and public sectors to work together more efficiently to improve the lives of residents by creating jobs, attracting investment and in increasing the diversity of the regional economy. Together we will continue to improve productivity and growth in the region and I look forward to continuing to work with government and our regional partners Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay in the future.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/know-LEPs-New-report-raises-transparency-fears/story-28993422-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, NHS (local)

Lewisham GP warns against devolution and health care

NHS reform: Devolution is not the only path to integrated healthcare

Plans to devolve control of health services to local areas are moving ahead quickly in parts of England. But handing powers to local authorities [or in our case the Local Enterprise Partnership] is not the only way to achieve health and social care integration, argues Socialist Health Association vice president Dr Brian Fisher – and devolution carries significant risks for the NHS.

In my area of Lewisham, the CCG and local authority have agreed to be a devo pilot. It will result in better services, possibly new powers, more integration. What’s not to like?

Devolution has real risks and I’d like to explore them here. And I am not convinced it’s needed at all.

Integration, on the other hand, is definitely needed. We know that patients fall through boundary cracks, and communication and culture is often a problem between sectors and organisations. Integration means many things. Including spanning the NHS and social care; primary and secondary care; community care and primary care; third sector and the NHS. Patients would benefit from better integration and communication across all those fences.

NHS integration

But integration and devolution are not the same thing. We have moved a great deal on integration without the need for devolution, and we could do a lot more. It seems a convenient elision to automatically link integration and devolution.

Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration. There are two kinds of devolution: the Sporadic kind, such as Devo-Manc and the Lewisham form – and the Systematic variety coming down the road in the shape of a parliamentary bill. This has big implications.

As I understand it, Devo-Manc has not attracted any new powers to either the NHS nor the LA. So, it may stimulate new conversations, but it doesn’t actually change anything fundamental.

It also brings no new money. Quite the opposite – the costs in money, time and resources of another local redisorganisation may be quite high.

There is little democracy or accountability in the NHS in any case, but devolution does not seem to help. The Devo-Manc changes have gone through with no consultation whatsoever, with even a local MP being unaware of them. Similarly in Lewisham. In addition, much decision-making then appears to take place on a much larger scale, with committees-in-common merging CCGs and localities – it takes planning even further from the citizen.

NHS privatisation

People on the ground in Manchester say they see no privatisation now or in the future. Indeed, they say that the Manchester arrangements militate against privatisation. Nonetheless, in principle, devolution is likely to lead to more shifts in contracts, new organisations – and all that, with the mechanisms in place through the HASCA, will lead to more tenders and more privatisation.

I understand that in Manchester, they are using devolution to carry through cuts to as much as a third of their hospital beds and estate. This, led by the leader of the council. In the current climate this kind of group think is very dangerous.

Meanwhile, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act will enable local authorities to run NHS organisations.

The Act enables a transfer of local functions of the NHS to a local authority or ‘combined authority’, with a local authority’s permission. The ‘core duties’ of the health secretary – including roles set out in NHS England’s mandate, cannot be transferred. The local authority could take on a current NHS role, or carry it out alongside or jointly with the NHS. The NHS may or may not continue to provide that service itself. There is provision to abolish the public authority where it will no longer have any functions. It allows for a joint committee of the devolved bodies, including at least one CCG, to establish a pooled fund to manage NHS cash.

In principle, it makes sense for NHS services to be run by a local authority: they are structurally democratic; they understand commissioning; much of our health is determined by areas under the control of local authorities; there could be a rapid integrative process; everyone knows their local authority, but is often ignorant of their CCG.

Deregulation of NHS services

But, do you really want your local NHS run by a politician – and particularly a Tory – in the current climate of austerity? Do you want an organisation, your local authority, which has privatised virtually every public service to do the same to the NHS? Do you want an organisation whose life blood is means-testing, trying to do the same to your health services?

The Devolution Act could lead to the deregulation of NHS services, too. The Act mentions ‘standards and duties to be placed on that authority having regard to the national service standards and the national information and accountability obligations’. The phrase ‘having regard to’ is weak in legal terms. It becomes possible for the nationalised standards of care and practice to be slowly abandoned. Surely highly dangerous. And we have seen this in so many other areas of work, for instance banking and food.

The kind of integration we should seek includes the following:

Integrated national standards with nationally recommended treatments.

Integrated methods of allocating resources to areas of greatest need.

Integrated funding through national taxation.

National accountability, democratic control over commissioning, effective PPI, shared power with communities.

An integrated national system of pay, terms and conditions for NHS and social care staff.

Meanwhile, making social care free at the point of need is an essential prerequisite for integration. It would transform the whole scope, scale and landscape of care. The King’s Fund think tank has calculated that it is possible – and we need this to be the direction of travel. It may take some time, but it is absolutely necessary.

So, in short – integration definitely yes. Let’s do more. Devolution, however, seems to have far more risks than benefits, so, in the current climate – beware.

Dr Brian Fisher, GP News, 15 March 2016

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Flooding, Local Enterprise Partnership

UK winter floods cost councils £250 million -what is our LEP’s role in building flood resilience ?

“The final tally could be even higher, as councils are still counting the cost of the winter devastation. The total cost to households and businesses hit by the winter floods could be as much as £5bn, KPMG said in December.

The worst-hit council was Cumbria, which saw around £175m in damage to local authority-owned infrastructure, with costs for flood-hit bridges, landslips, carriageway damage, survey work and the need to build a temporary road on the A591.

Calderdale has a bill of £33m, Northumberland £24m and Lancashire has suffered £5m damage due to the floods.

The LGA said government funding had been important in helping local authorities and communities recover from the floods, but warned councils will need more help as the full cost of damage emerges.

The organisation also called for new flood defence funding to be devolved to local areas so authorities can work with communities and businesses to ensure money is spent where it is most needed.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/25/uks-winter-floods-land-councils-with-nearly-250m-bill-survey-shows

This is what our LEP said in February 2014:

“Given its strategic role on both economic and funding matters, the Heart of the South West LEP has been asked to lead the Economic Impact and Funding workstream. The workstream will provide an underlying case for funding of immediate mitigation measures and wider assistance, as well as set out evidence for investment in longer term solutions for the levels and moors area.”

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/flooding

In June 2014 a £50,000 grant was given to establish “work hubs” in areas that had experienced flooding in the Mendips:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/flooding

The only other mention of flooding is in the LEPs response to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last year on the same webpage”

“We are pleased that the Exeter Flood Defence Scheme, which will help protect around 3200 businesses and residents across the city is taking shape. It’s vital that we take proactive flood alleviation measures to reduce the potentially disastrous consequences that flooding can have for the economy throughout the HotSW area.”

So, don’t hold your breath on the LEP being proactive with funding for flood resilience infrastructure – it has too much invested in the Hinkley C nuclear power plant and far too many “hubs” of all kinds to fund for business (wo)men for “growth” opportunities.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution

“New report calls for legal framework for devolution”

A new report has said more must be done to protect the independence of local government through legislation…

An inquiry chaired by Lord Bob Kerslake has called for primary legislation to be introduced to protect local government.

A report, which was published by the inquiry, also said more must be done to encourage government departments to support devolution.

The inquiry into Better Devolution was established by the All-Party parliamentary Group on Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution. It looked at how to achieve greater devolution across the country.

Some of the issues brought up by the inquiry included the scope of devolution deals to date and said all levels of the government must “establish a new understanding of accountability, with citizens looking to local leadership first, and central government second”.

The report added: “At a political level, devolution can only succeed if the electorate perceive a shift in accountability from national politicians to local.

“The temptation for central government to step in when something goes wrong at a local level must be resisted if we are to see this shift occur.

“There needs to be a new legal basis for the independence of local government, made through primary legislation.”

One of the main issues to be brought up during the inquiry was not all parts of the government are backing the drive to devolve powers to regions. Instead, the focus on growth is limiting the scope of devolution deals.

“It was put to us that despite the apparent open door attitude of the government, in practice there has been greater engagement from some government departments than others; a notion of so-called ‘no go’ areas was raised,” the report stated.

“There was also consensus that far from bespoke negotiations, the deals done to date are somewhat template arrangements with little room for variability, the overriding focus being on growth.”

The inquiry said to incorporate devolution successfully across the nation, “all of the UK civil service” will need reforming. There needs to be a more equal partnership between central and local government, as well as change within Whitehall to allow more services to be delivered locally.

Lord Kerslake said: “Greater devolution has the potential to deliver a stronger economy, better services and a stronger Union. But what we are doing now is piecemeal and incoherent.

“As we lead up to the EU referendum and consider our identity within Europe, the need for a wider debate on how we better empower our local areas and govern is greater than ever.

“The time has come for a bigger conversation – one involving all citizens – if we want to reduce the gap between those that govern and those that are governed, and ensure devolution has a strong and lasting legacy whatever the result in June.”

http://www.adjacentgovernment.co.uk/local-council-news/new-report-calls-legal-framework-devolution/25135/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

National Audit Office criticism of Local Enterprise Partnerships in more detail

“The National Audit Office has expressed concern at the level of transparency provided by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and the failure to test their governance assurance frameworks.

In a report on LEPs, the spending watchdog also warned that the approach taken by the Department for Communities and Local Government to overseeing Growth Deals risked future value for money.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: “LEPs’ role has expanded rapidly and significantly but they are not as transparent to the public as we would expect, especially given they are now responsible for significant amounts of taxpayers’ money.

“While the Department has adopted a ‘light touch’ approach to overseeing Growth Deals, it is important that this doesn’t become ‘no touch’. The Department needs to do more to assure itself that the mechanisms it is relying on ensure value for money are, in fact, effective.”

The NAO report acknowledged that the DCLG had acted to promote standards of governance and transparency in LEPs, and all 39 LEPs had frameworks in place to ensure regularity, propriety and value for money by March 2015.

But it noted that the Department had yet to test the implementation of such assurance frameworks at the time that Growth Deals were finalised. The watchdog said it had found “considerable gaps” in LEPs’ compliance with the DCLG’s requirements in this regard, and that the availability and transparency of financial information varied across LEPs.

The NAO highlighted how, with the advent of the Local Growth Fund, the amount of central government funding received by LEPs was projected to rise to £12bn between 2015-16 and 2020-21 via locally negotiated Growth Deals.

“The Department, however, has not set specific quantifiable objectives for what it hopes to achieve through Growth Deals, meaning that it will be difficult to assess how they have contributed to economic growth,” it suggested.

The report also revealed serious reservations among LEPs themselves about their capacity to deliver and the increasing complexity of the local landscape.

The NAO said: “To oversee and deliver Growth Deal projects effectively, LEPs need access to staff with expertise in complex areas such as forecasting, economic modelling and monitoring and evaluation. Only 5% of LEPs considered that the resources available to them were sufficient to meet the expectations placed on them by government. In addition, 69% of LEPs reported that they did not have sufficient staff and 28% did not think that their staff were sufficiently skilled.”

The report revealed that LEPs relied on their local authority partners for staff and expertise, and that private sector contributions had not yet materialised to the extent expected. In addition, there was a risk that projects being pursued would not necessarily optimise value for money, the watchdog said.

“Pressure on LEPs to spend their Local Growth Fund allocation in year creates a risk that LEPs will not fund those projects that are most suited to long term economic development. Some LEPs reported that they have pursued some projects over others that, in their consideration, would represent better value for money. LEPs have also found it challenging to develop a long-term pipeline of projects that can easily take the place of those that are postponed.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Mar 2016

Posted under

Devolution

Gateshead and Sunderland join Durham pausing devolution deal

THE North-East’s devolution D-Day looked to have been dramatically postponed tonight (Wednesday), after two more councils refused to sign up to the Chancellor’s flagship offer.

Seven North-East councils had been expected to thrash out a final decision on Chancellor George Osborne’s Boris Johnson-style “metro mayor” package tomorrow (Thursday, March 24).

But after Gateshead threw the process into chaos by rejecting the offer outright on Tuesday (March 23), today (Wednesday) both Durham and Sunderland voted to postpone their decisions until further details are confirmed.

Now when the seven councils meet together tomorrow afternoon (Thursday), under the banner of the North East Combined Authority (Neca), they are expected to follow suit and demand more time.

That request is understood to have grudging agreement of the Government, which is focused on the EU referendum, its under-fire Budget and devolution deals for other regions.

Durham County Council leader Simon Henig said the Government had failed to deliver “fair funding” for hard-up North-East town halls or say whether the new North-East mayor would be able to levy taxes; and if the deal went ahead without safeguards it would be setting the region up to fail.

“This needs to be the right decision for the North-East. We need to take the time to get it right,” he said.

His deputy, Alan Napier, said no-one of “sane mind” would sign up until they knew what was going on.

But Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland councils have already backed the deal.

The seventh and final council involved, South Tyneside, will discuss it tomorrow morning (Thursday).

Sunderland City Council leader Paul Watson said his cabinet had given its unqualified support for the principle of devolution and was “minded” to support the proposals, but added: “We will, in the extra time that has been granted by Government, be seeking further clarification on some details before a decision in the week beginning Monday 9 May.”

Conservative businessman Jeremy Middleton, the only person to publicly declare his candidacy for mayor, warned the region risked being left behind. “This delay shows the impact Labour infighting is having on the devolution process,” he added.

The package on offer would see powers over economic development, skills, transport, housing and planning, plus a £30m-a-year investment fund, handed to a North-East mayor to be elected in May 2017.

Neca will meet at Durham’s County Hall tomorrow (Thursday) at 2.30pm.

A similar devolution package for the Tees Valley, carrying a £15m-a-year investment fund, has already been backed by its five councils, Darlington, Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Redcar and Cleveland.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14379159.Two_more_North_East_councils_refuse_to_sign_devolution_deal/?ref=rss