Brexit: The law of unintended consequences strikes again

“Brexit will be biggest ever task for Whitehall, even though staffing is at lowest level since 1940s after redundancies”

” … Huge swaths of policy and legislation will need to be reconsidered and decided upon by ministers, government and parliament. All of this is required whilst maintaining our public services and carrying out business as usual.

“Many of our members have serious concerns about how we will implement this at a time of political and economic uncertainty. Many of these questions cannot be answered right now.”

The civil service is now at its smallest size since the second world war, employing about 392,000 full-time staff, according to the latest figures. It represents an 18% drop since the coalition government came to power in 2010. The government’s spending review has meant that departments have drawn up further staff cuts.

Lord Kerslake, the former head of the civil service, has called on the government to begin a rethink of government cuts to staffing levels because of Brexit.

“If they’re going to get through this mammoth negotiation, they are going to have to increase resources for a period of time – and they ought logically to put a stop on haemorrhaging people,” Lord Kerslake told the publication Civil Service World.

Senior officials believe the untangling of 40 years of EU legislation as the biggest task the civil service has ever faced. This will include deciding on what to keep, amend and reject from EU-related laws and around 13,000 regulations.

At the same time, the British government will be negotiating any new deals with the EU and the rest of the world.

Oliver Letwin, the prime minister’s close associate, is expected to coordinate the unit’s work across Whitehall.

However, former head of the civil service Lord Turnbull told the Treasury select committee on Tuesday that Letwin was “completely unsuitable to do that job in the longer term” because “he has been a kind of consigliere to the prime minister”.

Hannah Williams, the programme director from the Institute for Government, said that the government has failed to explain how the work will be completed. “The announcement today gives no further detail of how this new unit will be run, the expertise it will draw from, or how it will coordinate Whitehall’s Brexit efforts,” she said.

Olly Robbins, the civil servant who is currently responsible for policy on immigration, has been given the job of heading the new Brexit unit.

Robbins, 40, was the UK’s deputy national security adviser to the cabinet office. He told the high court in 2013 that the Guardian’s Edward Snowden revelations could lead to “widespread loss of life”. The government has not yet released proof to back up his claims. Robbins, who is second permanent secretary at the Home Office, was also accused of giving “extremely unsatisfactory” answers on the funding of the Border Force when he appeared before the Home Affairs select committee in April.

Keith Vaz, committee chairman, had asked him repeatedly whether Charles Montgomery, Border Force director-general, had been told what his budget was to be for the year ahead.”

http://gu.com/p/4n5zh

Claire Wright: even more important that MPs represent their constituency

“Brexit: It is now more important than ever that this country has MPs who will represent the people

Tuesday, 28 June 2016 1 Comment by Claire

Since Friday events have moved so fast I haven’t even written a blog as each time I think of an angle it gets superseded by another major news story!

The only clear thing among all the chaos and confusion, is that this country has probably never been more divided – politically and socially – and in my view, more in peril than at any other time in living memory.

The party system seems to have totally fractured. Not only has the Conservative parliamentary party become bitterly broken, the Labour party is also at war.

Last Friday morning I felt shellshocked and upset that we had left an institution I believed worked for the greater good, despite its many faults. Since then I have watched fascinated as the subsequent dramatic events unfolded.

The economic fallout came swiftly and is very worrying. The value of the pound has plummeted to a 31 year low, we are told that the UK’s credit rating has been downgraded from a triple A to a double A rating, we have dropped from being the fifth largest economy in the world to the fourth and the Bank of England is on standby to pump £250bn of public money into the markets to reduce the jitters currently reverberating across the globe from our EU exit.

More than £200bn has been wiped from the value of the UK stock market – equivalent to 24 years worth of EU contributions.

A general election is now looking possible in October, to tie in with the selection of a new prime minister.

Lies and exaggeration were undoubtedly the order of the day for both the Leave and Remain campaigns, but what is really galling to me is that the Leave movement won people over on false pretences. On the NHS and immigration in particular – two major planks of their operation, their claims have been found to be resoundingly untrue.

The Remain campaign focused too much on scaremongering and too little on how the EU helps us, which only riled people and forced them into entrenched positions , setting family member and friend against one another.

The conservative IN bandwagon, seemed to be blinkered on issues mainly linked to the economy and immigration, discounting all the positive things that the EU does for us, for example on employment, the environment and human rights for example. I believe that this was because these are the issues that are not valued by the right wing political elite that we currently have governing this country.

David Cameron’s supposedly one nation conservative cabinet, which campaigned WITH big business against a ban on bee killing pesticides, has already scrapped or weakened as many environmental protections as it can get away with. Planning regulations are now as relaxed and in favour of developers as they have been since the introduction of the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947.

With a future hardline right wing government on the cards, possibly led by the current favourite Boris Johnson, the likelihood of the current protections remaining for our seas, clean air, recycling, waste and for rare species, landscapes and plants – the Habitats Regulations – is remote.

Over the past few years the Conservative government has lobbied to scrap the EU Habitats Regulations – tough laws which protect some of our most precious landscapes here in East Devon, such as Woodbury Common, Aylesbeare Common, the Exe Estuary, as well as large swathes of Dartmoor.

However, despite the Habitats Regulations protecting our most rare and precious species such as the dartford warbler and the nightjar, our government announced the laws were “gold plated,” and lobbied the EU hard to get them scrapped.

The EU has so far held firm to these regulations, which also mean strong planning rules in these areas , as well as the surrounding countryside.

But I now can see on the horizon an inevitable and horrible ‘bonfire of red tape’ as a new right wing conservative leadership sets about dismantling anything that it views as in the way of “growth.”

So what is the future of East Devon now most of the country has voted to leave?

In my own council ward of Ottery, there must now be question marks for a controversial quarry proposed at Straitgate Farm, which was quietly looking less likely, due in part to the strict Habitats Regulations Protecting Woodbury Common, where Blackhill Quarry is based and where stone and gravel processing currently takes place. It was due to cease as of the end of this year because of these laws.

What will Brexit mean for East Devon’s two biggest industries? Agriculture and tourism? And what will it mean for education? What does it mean for our cash strapped NHS and our local very much at risk
community hospitals?

What will it mean for the most vulnerable people in the constituency and those on low incomes?

Certainly, both agriculture and education are forced to rely on EU subsidies and grants.

Prolonged economic hardship will surely mean even deeper public spending cuts, yet deeper cuts to public services, which as always, will have the biggest effect on those people who have the least.

If a general election does take place in October, the future of our district – and the rest of the country – rests with those politicians examining thousands of pages of EU law and policy with a view to changing, scrapping or tightening it.

The future of our vulnerable residents also rests with MPs who have a duty to stand up for people who need help and support.

East Devon’s MP needs speak and vote in favour or against new laws and policies based on how they affect local people. That’s voting FOR the people of East Devon, not his party.

Each MP has a duty, in my view, to be a diligent scrutineer of this process.

What laws or policies do we want in East Devon that will benefit us, our communities, our wildlife and our businesses? Now is the time to consider this very carefully.

If democracy is working effectively people in East Devon should have the opportunity to influence such discussions through our MP.

And our MP has a responsibility to stand up for the people of East Devon and what they see as their priorities, especially at this very turbulent time.

The question has to be as ever. Is Mr Swire up to the job?”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/brexit_it_is_now_more_important_than_ever_that_this_country_has_mps_who_wil

Google ” most-searched-for words locally pre-Referendum

Exeter, Cornwall, Plymouth and North Devon – immigration (unsurprising)

Torridge and the South Hams – expats (obviously second-homers on both sides of the channel!)

Mid Devon, West Devon and Teignbridge – NHS (they are about to lose several local hospitals)

And East Devon? The economy. The only area that searched first on the economy.

Owl thinks it’s because lots of East Devon developers (particularly those at the Growth Point and Cranbrook) farmers who might become developers ( you know who you are) and councillors worried about paying for their new HQ hogged the search engine!

Wonder what our LEP members searched for? Still waiting for that upbeat press release, guys.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/google-stats-show-the-most-searched-for-issue-in-exeter-ahead-of-the-eu-referendum/story-29449216-detail/story.html

Update: the nearest other county that searched for the economy near us was North Somerset – so close to Hinkley C!

What is EDDC’s highest risk in its Risk Register?

In the full risk register there is one risk currently scored as high:

The Council’s income now relies on income from new homes bonus monies which is directly related to new house building in the district.

There is a risk of lower growth than estimated or the Government changing the mechanism for payment.
Impact: Major
Likelihood: Likely

The reason for the escalation of this risk is that the government is currently considering a new scheme following a period of consultation. There is now uncertainty as to the implications of any changes to the scheme.

Click to access combined-a-and-g-agenda-final-300616.pdf

Our LEP’s “Strategic Plan” 2014-2030

Although it was published in March 2016, this is worth re-reading in the light of declining economic forecasts for which our LEP has no contingency plans.

Here is just a flavour of it with its “Executive Summary”. It is a masterpiece of spin over substance.

And who on earth thought up the “‘golden thread from the bottom up”!

Our vision is to transform the reputation and positioning of our area nationally and globally by 2030.

We want the key strengths of the Heart of the South West to be seen as key assets of UK plc. We want our people, places and business to see the public and private sector work together for their benefit; capitalising on the opportunities on our doorstep, realising the potential for high growth in our knowledge economy, and securing more and higher value jobs.

However, addressing the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure and investing in strategic enablers are key to unleashing our growth potential.

Our Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) sets out our understanding of the challenges we have to overcome and our priorities for action. It has been developed in collaboration and consultations with partners from business, education, the public sector and the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sectors, ensuring a golden thread runs through it from the bottom up, taking into account local plans and aspirations; and top down, taking into account national policy objectives and guidelines.

Our SEP will be the base document for our approach to investment and funding opportunities until its review in 2020 and will be delivered through a number of mechanisms over its lifetime. The Plymouth and Peninsula City Deal, the European Structural and Investment Strategy and the Growth Deal 2015, submitted alongside our SEP, are key delivery strands agreed or negotiated in 2014. Others may follow.”

https://www.lepnetwork.net/modules/downloads/download.php?file_name=19

But the consultations referred to above did not include us – the voters. The ” golden thread” doesn’t actually start at the bottom!

“An ethical crisis in British capitalism”

“It is pointless to deny now that there is an ethical crisis in British capitalism. The issue is not just the primacy of cash extraction over investment. There is a deeper malaise that has blurred the distinction between enterprise and racketeering.

When Ed Miliband drew that line in a speech in 2011 he found himself in the press pillory reserved for politicians of the left whose rhetoric is insufficiently deferential to business. But Mr Miliband was on to something and, slowly, ever greater numbers of Conservatives are drawing the same conclusions. Tory MPs are prominent in the charge to see Sir Philip stripped of his knighthood. There is a recognition on the right that rising anti-corporate sentiment cannot be written off as an envious leftwing ideological tantrum. It expresses justified outrage at a system that allows rich and powerful individuals to wreak social and economic havoc with impunity.

With breathtaking cynicism, hardline Eurosceptics even try to steer this sentiment against Britain’s EU membership, denouncing Brussels as a corporate conspiracy. In truth, workers and consumers need protections agreed at a European level to prevent cross-border competitive junking of rights leading to more rampant exploitation – Brexit’s real destination.

The new Tory critique of rapacious capitalism points towards the potential for a new consensus. It might encourage business leaders to discover that their self-interest lies in a more enlightened approach to workers’ rights and acceptance of wider social responsibilities. Most businesses would welcome such a shift and most politicians would gladly facilitate one. The idea that all capitalism is cruel and that private profit is all theft from the public is confined to the left-most fringe. Likewise, only a handful of ultras on the right now believe that all regulation is a suffocation of economic freedom.

A workable solution to the challenge posed by cases such as BHS, Boots and Sports Direct can come about only through a partnership of business and politics. The full force of existing laws must be applied, and the bully pulpit of the Commons should be used to greater effect. But that is just a prelude to a cultural change, whereby the spirit of enterprise might more plausibly be invoked as a force for progress. Too often now it is a cover for something much darker.”

http://gu.com/p/4yv5p

Austerity policies do more harm than good, IMF study concludes

“A strong warning that austerity policies can do more harm than good has been delivered by economists from the International Monetary Fund, in a critique of the neoliberal doctrine that has dominated economics for the past three decades. In an article seized on by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, the IMF economists said rising inequality was bad for growth and that governments should use controls to cope with destabilising capital flows. …”

http://gu.com/p/4jm68

Accountants gloomy – now the Church of England sells investments

See post below. Now the Church of England has announced it is selling investments even though it outperforms the market.

The Church Estates Commissioner writes:

The nervousness of investors is explained by the feeling that governments have lost the power to reverse any slowdown in economic activity. In earlier times they would reduce interest rates, but now that rates hover around zero, that remedy is unavailable. And it’s hard to believe that negative interest rates can provide the necessary boost, or that governments would let the supply of money expand.

“In other words, the risk is that economic activity slows down across the world and remains stuck at a low level.”

http://gu.com/p/4j8cb

A scary description of the state we are in (and a manifesto for Local Enterprise Partnerships?)

“Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers. …

… The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.” …

… Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics. …

… The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised”. …

… The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation. …

… These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.”

• George Monbiot’s How Did We Get into This Mess?

extracts from
http://gu.com/p/4tbfb

“The planning and delivery potential of LEPs” – Royal Town Planning Institute briefing

…”LEPs need to keep their private sector representation under review, and strengthen their relationship with local business organisations and local authority economic development teams, to ensure that plans and priorities reflect local business and interests. …

… LEPs should assess the social and environmental implications of decisions as part of their project appraisal processes. …

… The Local Growth Deals that have been agreed focus on transport and infrastructure aimed at unlocking employment and housing development. These appear quite generic in nature, with only a relatively small proportion of projects directed towards supporting priority growth sectors. Funding is also focused on principal urban areas and main transportation corridors. The resources secured and allocated by LEPs are being directed more towards areas of opportunity rather than need. …

… The relationship between local authorities and LEPs appears to be led at a corporate level and is largely resourced from economic development teams of upper tier authorities. There is little direct involvement of local authority planners with the work of LEPs and their awareness of LEPs’ activities is typically low (the exception is the West of England LEP, where the West of England Partnership has helped to bring forward additional joint working). …

… From the perspective of local planning authorities, LEPs are not seen as having a significant role to play in sustainable development given their clear remit around local economic growth. This stands in contrast to the work of the former South West RDA, which had a significant focus on environmental and social dimensions. …”

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1733440/rtpi_research_briefing_-_local_enterprise_partnerships_in_the_south_west_18_march_2016.pdf

“Devon New Economy Gathering”

More signs of discontent – this time very local

“WHEN
Saturday, 16 April 2016 from 10:00 to 17:00

WHERE
Exeter Community Centre – 17 St Davids Hill, Exeter EX4 3RG
(Beside Iron Bridge)

Devon New Economy Gathering
organised by Exeter Pound and Exeter Transition

Tickets: £20 / £10 / £5 . Please select tickets according to what you can afford. £10 and £5 tickets are intended primarily for students and claimants.

A day to link organisers, activists, practitioners, and others working for economic change, and to hear about local and regional initiatives.
Join us in making the big shift happen!

There are exciting community-led economic solutions to austerity emerging across the region, as well as effective strategies, innovative projects and energetic collaborators. This is a chance to find out who (else) is working on a new local economy one that is more inclusive, democratically accountable, ecological and creates more wellbeing.

Find collaborators – How can we make it happen (more)?

Share visions for the wider economy to see how our local work fits in, and ways we can work together locally to move forward change in the big picture
Keynote session: launched By Stewart Wallis, Senior Adviser at New Economics Foundation

‘A new economy and how to make it happen’

Topics for discussion could include:

What needs to grow and what doesn’t? Well being and better indicators
Relocalizing money and finance – local currencies and financial institutions
Food for all – affordable and local?
Positive Money, a Green New Deal, banking reform
Fostering local enterprises – Local Enterprise Forum
Management of land for greater equality
Engines of inequality and how to interrupt them
Social enterprises – why are they different; starting them and teaching about them
If not austerity what? What to do about the national debt
Potential of the Devolution agenda
Fossil free Devon – Disinvestment from fossil fuels

To pay in Exeter Pounds or Exe’s, or to request a free ticket, please contact the organiser by email or tel 01647 24789/01392 348105

A childrens workshop will be available for the morning only: Please contact the organizer to enquire or book (by 8th April please)”

Next scrutiny committee agenda published – rural broadband down the pan

Really worth a full read but here are some highlights:

Broadband (or lack of):

I regret that our application was unsuccessful as you will see from the two letters that are appended to this update.” (Twiss quote)

The exchange of correspondence between EDDC and the grant funders who turned down the application is VERY enlightening and should be a major embarrassment to lead councillor Phil Twiss.

Having pulled out of the Devon-wide consortium that has just been granted extra funding we are – precisely nowhere, in fact worse than that, much further back with rural broadband provision than ever before.

Public engagement (or lack of):

A risible attempt to produce a (very brief) report that pretends that EDDC consults appropriately and widely – but listing examples where the public has the exact opposite opinion!

Website (or lack of)

Boasting that more and more forms are going online and how wonderful the industry insiders think it is (so it’s a pity you can rarely find what you are looking for as an outsider and with many documents missing. But how you can get gold stars from your colleagues when your search function is described only as “fairly good” beats Owl!

and the committee’s draft report for the council’s own annual report all up for scrutiny.

Click to access 140416-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Our LEP needs you!

 

your

 

Much as it pains Owl, it must reluctantly attempt to do our LEP’s work for it – after all, it is Owl’s  money that is invested in this venture – though Owl, of course, had no say in the matter.

The LEP’s “business cafe” venture is currently woefully undersubscribed.

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/heart-south-west-pop-business-cafes-0

The one in Ivybridge tomorrow has 28 slots of which only 9 are so far taken
The one in Barnstaple for 12 April has 18 slots of which 2 have been taken
The one in Bideford on 13 April has 15 slots of which none are taken
The one for Tavistock on 18 or 19 April (it is hard to be sure as the heading says 19 April but the body of the page says 18 April though it is a Tuesday so probably 19 April) has 23 slots and 1 taken
The one originally advertised for 6 April in Exeter 2016 but now changed to 27 April without any explanation has 35 slots, none of which are taken

This is a total of 119 slots with only 12 taken – leaving around 90% of the slots to be booked up.

Come on, there are experts out there to be paid with our money – where are all those businesses that desperately need these (unnamed) experts to tell them what they should be doing and how they can link in to the exciting prospects available at Hinkley C – one day … maybe?

The LEP Pop up cafe in Exeteron 6 April 2016 just popped down

Originally advertised for 6 April 2016 at the Fresha cafe in Sowton, Exeter, the link now takes you to a completely different date (Wednesday 27 April). No explanation – no notice of how or why the date has had to be changed.

However, rather than 28 slots for “business advice” of which two had been taken last week, there are now 32 – with extra slots with a taxation expert. All 32 slots are currently available for booking.

Come on you businesses, get that advice from these unidentified experts, otherwise this will look like a very expensive (6 experts each being paid for at least a morning’s work) damp squib on the part of the LEP.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/heart-of-the-south-west-pop-up-business-cafe-exeter-registration-22583110692

“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

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/

“Growth”

All today’s newspapers announce that George Osborne is having problems because his estimate of “growth” has gone awry – it has slowed down – and therefore he must cut public spending and find ways of increasing taxation even more than he had anticipated.

However, our Local Enterprise Partnership continues to operate on old (very old) overestimated growth forecasts and makes great claims about how those overestimated figure will allow them to create 167,000 jobs over the next 15 years.

What does our LEP know that George Osborne doesn’t?

Devolution: where are the new jobs coming from?

“About 25,000 jobs are expected to be created during construction of the power plant, as well as 900 permanent jobs during its 60-year operation.”

http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/North-Devon-risk-Hinkley-Point-nuclear-reactor/story-26128750-detail/story.html

163,000 new jobs by 2030
http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/devolution

So, this means that up to 2030 Devon and Somerset has to create around 147,000 jobs in 15 years (163,000 minus 26,000 even though 25,000 of these jobs will be temporary and with two Hinkley sites closing most of the 900 permanent jobs will probably go to redundant workers from the old sites)

147,000 jobs in 15 years equals around 9,800 new jobs in Devon and Somerset each and every year over and above those being created at Hinkley C.

The LEP says:

LABOUR MARKET

“There were 11,292 JSA claimants (1.1% of the working age population, compared to UK 1.8%) across the Heart of the SW in July 2015. This is a minor increase of 0.4% from June 2015, but a 22.2% fall since July 2014. The most significant reduction over the year has been experienced in Somerset (-34.0%), followed by Torbay (-26.1%), Devon (-20.2%) then Plymouth (9.7%). Devon and Somerset continue to have the lowest claimant rates across the sub-region (both 0.8%, compared to Torbay and Plymouth 1.9% and 2.0% respectively). This has contributed to the HotSW ranking among the best performing LEPs in the country in JSA claimant terms (14th out of 39)”

There is no way that 163,000 jobs can be taken up by every unemployed person in Devon and Somerset – indeed employing EVERY unemployed person in the area would soak up about a year’s worth of the new jobs specified.

This means that around 90% of the new jobs must be filled from outside the LEP area at a time where EVERY LEP is making similar claims about the number of jobs it expects to create.

And let us not forget that many of the 25,900 jobs at Hinkley C will go to French and Chinese workers.

The maths just don’t work. Good luck with that.

A bumper Overview Committee agenda: flooding, coastal management, boundary review and engagement with business

Agenda items include:

Devon Local Flood Risk Management Strategy – Delivery Update to East Devon District Council Overview Committee – March 2016

Coastal Protection

Boundary Committee Review (which includes an interesting survey, completed by EDDC councillors on what they do, how long they spend doing it and how satisfied they are with what they are doing). With one (anonymous, of course) councillor commenting:

The public get good value from EDDC compared to the BBC licence fee! ”

(Anyone else fancy opting out of council tax at this rather stupid remark?)

and another saying

The public prefer to lobby councillors than talk to officers”

(er, no, councillors, most of the time officers refuse to talk to us and YOU therefore are our only conduit to officers).

and an agenda item on “business engagement” which always brings Owl out in spots recalling the last business engagement scenario – the East Devon Business Forum!

Some interesting remarks in the report”

In helping to meet the identified need for business growth in East Devon, an even more pressing requirement emerged. It became apparent that the number of Devon businesses registered on the Hinkley Point C Supply Chain portal – a requirement of contracting to Europe’s biggest engineering project – were critically low compared to Somerset. ”

Er, not really surprising when you factor in geographical location and transport costs!

and

East Devon is a low wage and low productivity area with a high proportion of residents retired or in seasonal and part-time work. The West End of the district is experiencing new jobs growth as the Growth Point sites gradually start to build out, but elsewhere in the district the job situation is less certain. Business Parks such as Greendale and Hill Barton are nearing capacity and house prices make change of use from employment to residential an incentive for landowners and developers. This does not make for sustainable or balanced economic growth for much of the district.”

Click to access 220316-overview-agenda-combined.pdf

Tory MPs against “growth”?

27 Tory MPs voted against allowing shops to open all day on Sundays and the Government was defeated.

Government Minister Brandon Lewis said they had stopped “one billion pounds of growth”.

Does this mean that ar least 27 Tory MPs are not swayed by their party’s mantra of growth, growth and only growth?

Seeds of dissent …