Category Archives: Local Enterprise Partnership

Gallery

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Paul Diviani, Somerset County Council, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

Who suggested a 26% payrise for our LEP’s CEO and who pays for it?

We know it wasn’t Devon County Council- they are quoted as saying they will object. It doesn’t seem it is Somerset County Council as DCC mentions that it believes they will also object.

So, we have a very strange situation where the CEO’s of the two counties involved seem to have no power over the people who are supposed to work on behalf of the two counties.

If enough other board members (including our own Paul Diviani) agree, presumably the increase will go ahead.

Remember, this money will not come out of their own budgets but from us, the taxpayers – and we have NEVER been asked if we agree to this.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Somerset County Council, Transparency

Comments

4 Comments

LEP CEO in line for a 26% payrise

“The leader of Devon County Council has criticised a proposed pay rise of more than 26% for the head of a government-backed regional business partnership.

Devon County Council will be voting against the pay rise for the chief executive of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, which is tasked with bringing prosperity to the region.

Businesses, local authorities and universities from across Devon and Somerset are represented on the LEP board.

The vote at the partnership’s board meeting next Tuesday, January 17, will be on a whether to increase the pay package of Chris Garcia, the chief executive, from £90,729 to £115,000.

A spokesman for Devon County Council said they anticipated that the Somerset County Council representative at the meeting would take the same stance.

Devon council leader John Hart said his vote was not personal but was on principle.

“As a local authority subject to significant government cuts, I cannot support a pay rise of 25% for any high-level official,” he said.

“It is clear the CEO does a good job and the LEP has brought many millions of pounds into the Devon economy [not verified as no figures available]. But there has to be recognition of the tight financial times in which we live.”

The Heart of the South West LEP is a business-led partnership of four county and unitary authorities, 15 district authorities, four universities and 10 FE colleges across Devon, Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/lep-boss-in-line-for-26-pay-rise/story-30056532-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Jan 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Local Enterprise Partnership

Should LEP’s be county based? To be tested in Sheffield

“Residents of South Yorkshire will not get to vote for a mayor this summer after the high court ruled they had not been not properly consulted on whether the county could annex part of Derbyshire.

The mayoral elections are being postponed until 2018 so that the Sheffield city region (SCR) can consult the public on whether Chesterfield in Derbyshire should join the combined authority, along with Bassetlaw in Nottinghamshire.

Momentum is building behind calls for the SCR proposal to be scrapped in favour of a whole-Yorkshire deal. With more than 5 million residents, the four counties of Yorkshire have a bigger population than Scotland and a GDP double that of Wales.

Caroline Flint, the Labour MP for the Don Valley, said a Yorkshire-wide deal should be explored. “It’s disappointing that the deal has fallen through but maybe there is an opportunity to reflect on whether there is another way forward,” she said.

“Maybe there is a regional way to bring the whole of Yorkshire and the Humber together because if we were given the powers through devolution I think we could do a great job. With 5 million people it would be amazing the things we could do. There is nothing stronger than the Yorkshire brand – it’s one of the best things we have to promote our region.”

In October 2015 the Sheffield city region became the second combined authority to sign a devolution deal with the then chancellor, George Osborne, as part of his dream to build a “northern powerhouse” to rival London and the south-east.

Under the terms of the agreement, South Yorkshire was to elect its own mayor this May, along with Greater Manchester, Tees Valley, the West Midlands, the west of England and the Liverpool city region.

The former sports minister Richard Caborn and the Barnsley council leader, Stephen Houghton, had been expected to contest the Labour nomination for South Yorkshire mayor.

After the SCR officially postponed the mayoral elections on Thursday, Ros Jones, the mayor of Doncaster, and Houghton issued a joint statement saying they owed it to residents to “work with colleagues to explore this new Yorkshire-wide option, to ensure we give all potential devolution solutions proper consideration so that residents can be fully informed when being asked to participate in consultation over the summer months”.

Conservative MPs and councillors in Yorkshire have long favoured a whole-Yorkshire deal, reasoning that their party would then have a better shot at winning a mayoral election. The idea has been strongly resisted, particularly by Labour leaders in West Yorkshire, who caused David Cameron to once remark: “We just thought people in Yorkshire hated everyone else; we didn’t realise they hated each other so much.”

In September last year the five Labour leaders of West Yorkshire’s councils – Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Calderdale and Kirklees – reluctantly agreed to follow Greater Manchester’s lead and accept the imposition of an elected mayor in return for more power. Their proposed Leeds city region would have included cooperation with York, Selby, Craven and Harrogate in North Yorkshire.

But the deal was stymied by Tories including Kevin Hollinrake, the MP for Thirsk and Malton, who told the Guardian last year that when he was councillor he had lobbied Osborne and the then local government minister, Greg Clark, to reject the West Yorkshire deal. He denied his objections were politically motivated, saying he thought the proposed geography was “very counterproductive and ill-thought-out” and would put his rural constituency at a disadvantage.

“The reason I was concerned is that the West Yorkshire deal encompassed York and Harrogate, and as a representative for a rural North Yorkshire seat it would cause significant problems to have the key towns and city within our economy included and us left outside,” he said.

Hollinrake and other Conservatives prefer the idea of a Greater Yorkshire devolution deal. “It’s in the economic best interests of my region. This isn’t political. According to our calculations, if there were a mayor of Greater Yorkshire it’s very evenly balanced as to whether they are Labour or Conservative or indeed independent,” he said.

He said he thought Alan Johnson, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, or William Hague, the Conservative former foreign secretary who represented Richmond in North Yorkshire for 26 years until 2015, could do a good job as mayor.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/12/sheffield-mayoral-vote-delay-prompts-calls-for-yorkshire-wide-deal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Devolution, Golden Triangle LEP, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

To be an LEP or not to be an LEP – that is the question

Just before Christmas, we read that three local authorities ( including Plymouth and Exeter) were pulling out of the Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership (comprising the whole of Devon and Somerset). They intended to form their own LEP – the so-called “Golden Triangle LEP”:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/12/13/the-extorply-lep-talks-continue/

We assume that, partly, this was because those authorities were not convinced that a “Devset” super-mayor (a requirement for government funding – and quite possibly from Somerset) would not adequately represent their interests.

Since then we have heard absolutely nothing about the situation from either side.

Is the “Golden Triangle LEP” still on the cards?
Have the local authorities which want to break away formally withdrawn?
If not, do they intend to withdraw and when?
If so, what happens to current funds held by the LEP on their behalf?
Are we having a Devset super-mayor or not?
When (if ever) will electors be consulted – and about what?
Will Devon continue to subsidise heavy HOTSW LEP investment in Hinkley C that, despite promises, shows little knock-on benefit to our county?

And when will Somerset County Council (as the chosen lead authority for scrutiny – though chosen by whom we do not know) be subject to scrutiny (or scrutinising itself) about where our money has gone, is going, and will go?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/08/is-devolution-already-with-us-a-briefing-paper-on-the-major-changes-to-regional-funding-since-2010/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Jan 2017

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

Comments

1 Comment

Is Devolution already with us? A briefing paper on the major changes to regional funding since 2010

A paper provided to East Devon Watch by D W Daniel – feel free to reproduce or retransmit unchanged and with attribution:

Executive summary

1. In 2010 the coalition government commenced a major shakeup of regional funding with the ultimate aim of providing a form of English devolution. This briefing paper attempts to summarise the sequence of changes from an East Devon perspective when it comes to detail. It has proved to be a difficult task. The author has failed to find a single source listing, for example, the sums paid to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). Many sources aggregate data to produce numbers that cannot be cross compared. Even government sources are inconsistent. The LEPs themselves are also an unreliable source, publicising bids but not the outturn, especially if unfavourable. Bearing these caveats in mind the author believes the briefing presents an accurate and comprehensive picture of where we are at the beginning of 2017 in a process that continues to evolve.

2. Across England (it only affects England) LEPs now control an annual budget of £2 billion. They are self-selecting bodies, Chaired by businessmen with businessmen in the majority. Although there may be a few local councillors on the board, they have to be in a minority. As the National Audit Office points out LEPs have no track record for delivery. There appear to be no metrics by which the investment decision they make can be evaluated and no mechanism for scrutiny. Likewise there appears to be no mechanism for publicly accountable scrutiny of any conflict of interest that might arise in the way these funds are distributed. All this has happened below the radar of public perception, even amongst councillors.

Regional Growth Fund and Local Enterprise Partnerships

3. 2010 was the year Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, introduced a white paper “Local growth: realising every place’s potential. (CM 7961)”, part of the Localism ideal of “handing power to local people”, announcing a £1.4 billion Regional Growth Fund open to bidders who had ambition and a clear vision for growth. The white paper also announced the eventual abolition of Regional Development Agencies and the establishment of the first phase of 24 LEPs to take their place. “The Government wishes to see partnerships which understand their economy and are directly accountable to local people and local businesses.” The ultimate aim was to move towards regional devolution.

4. LEPs have to be chaired by a prominent business leader and at least half of the board members must come from the private sector. LEPs should be based on functional economic areas rather than regions. The initial intention was that LEPs should be self-funding from private enterprise. In the event this did not materialise. In August 2011 the government allocated funds to LEPs from a one-off start-up fund of £5 million and in the 2012 Autumn Statement each LEP was offered support for “capacity building” to enable them to “support the development and delivery of their strategic plan”. Each LEP was offered £125,000 in 2012/13 for “immediate support”. In a 2016 report the NAO says: “The Department provides LEPs with £500,000 in core funding for administrative purposes, subject to LEPs securing £250,000 in match funding from local partners. All LEPs received the same core funding, regardless of size or structure.” Subsequent growth deals include sums for administration.

5. The first phase of 24 LEPs from 62 bids was announced in the 2010 white paper. These included Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and the West of England LEP (Bristol, Bath, North and North East Somerset, and South Gloucester). This decision meant that the South West could never subsequently be considered as an integrated economic region from the point of view of devolution. By end 2012 the government had approved a further 15 LEPs to fill in the gaps so that the whole of England was covered. LEPs vary in differing levels of size, urbanisation, population, and existing infrastructure and it is questionable as to how many could be suitable platforms for full devolution along the lines originally envisaged.

Heart of the South West

6. In July 2012 the Heart of the South West (HOTSW) LEP, held its first meeting though research shows it was actually appointed by the government in June 2011. The HOTSW covers 17 local authorities in Devon and Somerset and the two unitary authorities of Plymouth and Torbay. It became a Community Interest Company (CIC) incorporated at Companies House on 6 Feb 2014. Its bespoke articles of association added clauses, for example, allowing for the removal, in certain circumstances, of the lock on asset transfer, normally fundamental to (CIC). The current (2017) self-selecting board numbers 20. It is chaired by Steve Hindley (Chairman Midas Group, a construction and development company). Of these 20 board members: six are elected local councillors; four have backgrounds in construction, development or property; three are senior members of educational establishments; three are connected to defence and software industries; the remainder have backgrounds in utility, employment and skills consulting, outsourcing and grant distribution. Only four of the 20 are women. Not the sort of mix you would immediately think of as having an understanding, or being representative, of Devon’s rural and seasonal tourist economy and its mix of small businesses. The Devon County Councillor and leader of East Devon District Council (EDDC), Cllr Paul Diviani, joined the board on 13 November 2013. Despite this EDDC councillors, and Devon County Councillors, have been kept in the dark about the workings, expenditure and outcomes, if any, of our LEP.

7. Devon and Somerset are surrounded by two single county LEPs: Cornwall and Dorset; and the metropolitan West of England LEP centred on Bristol and Bath.

8. It was not until another three years had passed that, in September 2015, news of HOTSW began to filter out into general awareness and then only because they published their fully fledged statement of intent to launch (on our behalf) a bid for devolution. Not until then had any minutes been available in the public domain. As we shall see by this time HOTSW had already compiled a fully-fledged strategic plan and submitted it to government. There has been no public consultation at any time.

Single Local Growth Fund

9. In October 2012 Lord Heseltine published a government commissioned report “No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth”. His main recommendation was to combine all separate funding streams supporting growth into a single funding pot for local areas. This was accepted in the 2013 Spending Review with the creation of a Single Local Growth Fund (SLGF) of £2 billion from existing skills, housing and transport budgets from 2015/16, an additional £5 billion transport funding between 2016/17 and 2020/21 and a pledge to maintain SLGF at a total of at least £2 billion each year through the next Parliament.

10. This money was intended to be administered by LEPs who were then barred from bidding in any further Regional Growth Fund (RGF) deals and in the 2015 Spending Review the RGF was in effect closed leaving the LEPs responsible for the distribution of all growth funding i.e. de facto taking the place of the former Regional Development Agencies. Interesting to note that in April 2013 the then Business Secretary Vince Cable argued (interview with the Northern Echo) that big decisions on funding must be administered from Whitehall on the basis that some LEPs had very small numbers of business people on their boards and were not publicly accountable and unsuited to manage large amounts of public money. See later comments by National Audit Office (NAO) which also points out that LEPs lack any track record of delivery.

LEP Strategic Economic Plans and Growth Deals

11. In July 2013, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills gave LEPs guidance and set deadline of March 2014 to submit final versions of their Strategic Economic Plans, which would then be assessed by central government. In March 2014, all 39 LEPs submitted Strategic Economic Plans for approval. In July 2014, the government announced details of funding secured by each LEP over the period 2015 – 2021. In January 2015, the government expanded the deals, with LEPs securing a further £1 billion in total investment between 2016 and 2021. As of March 2016, £7.3 billion worth of Growth Deal funding had been allocated to LEPs. Funding is made as a single annual grant payment, made at the start of each financial year to a nominated local authority to act as accountable body. For HOTSW the accounting body is Somerset County Council. Nothing can be found on how scrutiny is to be conducted. LEPs are grouped into three categories of flexibility in how they can spend Growth Deal funding. This categorisation is based on the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)’s judgement of each LEP’s ability to deliver their Growth Deal programmes and the strength of their governance arrangements. LEPs can receive greater flexibility through improving their governance.

12. As a result of a 2014 freedom of information request, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (since merged and renamed) published a table listing the amounts awarded to LEP led and delivered programmes and projects in Rounds two, three and four of the RGF (private sector firms could bid independently- see Augusta Westlands below). HOTSW appear to have been singularly unsuccessful in their bidding as they received nothing. (Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP received £13M in round two and West of England LEP £39.8M in round two and £25M in round three). Despite this failure HOTSW is now controlling well in excess of £150 million investment fund to 2021.

13. In Oct 2012 Augusta Westland secured a £46 million cash windfall from the RGF, as a private sector bid, to help the company create a new production line for helicopters targeted at the civil aviation market, with matched company funding. This is a good example of the way the RGF operated historically but highlights the potential for future conflicts of interests as the business controlled LEPs assess and distribute future grants. A Director of Augusta Westlands is a HOTSW board member.

14. In July 2014, the Heart of the South West LEP, following submission of its strategic plan, was awarded £103.2 million from the Local Growth Fund over the period 2015-2021; in January 2015 a further £65.2 million of funding was awarded between 2016 and 2021 (these figures exclude any European funding which LEPs also administer). The LEP estimates up to 22,000 jobs could be created, 11,000 homes built and up to £260 million of public and private investment generated as a result of this funding. The bid proposal included £13 million to provide Hinkley C infrastructure and £55 million of pump priming to provide Hinkley housing. A Nuclear Training College was also proposed. The deal agreed also includes £13.7 million loan funding to three developers to accelerate home building at: Frome, Brixham, Exeter and Highbridge.

15. It is difficult to find these projections in the actual growth plan (because it covers a longer period than the funding) – but they do appear in what are called “Factsheets”, supplementary papers associated with the government published growth deals. There are consistent, comparable, “claimed” growth figures for all 39 LEPs for the 2015-2021 period from which one finds:

(a) HOTSW is claiming to be able to generate the fourth highest number of jobs 22,000 (outbid only by Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Dorset and South East LEPs).

(b) HOTSW is also claiming to be able to deliver the fourth highest number of homes 11,000 (outbid only by Hertfordshire, Thames Valley and again South East LEP).

The author is left wondering at what point ambition over reaches itself.

Growing Places Fund

16. As if this was not complex enough there is also the £500 million Growing Places Fund announced on 7 November 2011, extended by £270 million in 2012. This fund was designed to tackle immediate infrastructure investment constraints, with a focus on housing and transport. The allocations to LEPs were made in February 2012, these were calculated using a formula based on population and employed earnings. The June 2012 HOTSW Newsletter indicates a £21.5m fund is available to them. In retrospect this can be considered as a one-off fund.

National Audit Office findings

17. This transformational process has been subject to a series of reviews by the National Audit Office (NAO). The latest NAO progress report on the Regional Growth Fund was published in Feb 2014. The report found more than three-quarters of the fund set up to boost regional economies remained unspent (£2.6bn allocated in Rounds one to four, but only £492m had so far actually reached projects and £425 million was being held by programme intermediaries (of which £10 million was for administration)). The estimate of the average cost per net additional job of bids selected in round four is £52,300. This compares with £30,400 in the first round, £33,500 in the second, and £39,700 in the third, but these differences probably reflect greater realism. Around half of jobs created were covered by just five of the 291 operational schemes. The general conclusion, as with the previous report, was that this expenditure was not optimising value for money.

18. In a report on LEPs published on 23 March 2016 the NAO made this comment on Growth Deals. “The Department’s [DCLG] published guidance set out what they expected to see in LEPs’ strategic economic plans; however, the Department intentionally did not specify the format that these plans should take. They did this to encourage LEPs to decide the process of formulating plans locally, competitively and in a way that would encourage innovation. This resulted in wide variation across the 39 plans in the way information was presented, time periods covered, and the evidence bases they used. Additionally, the Department did not define output metrics until after the plans were approved. LEPs therefore used different definitions to describe the outputs of their planned interventions, such as jobs. The Department’s assessors reported that they found it challenging to assess the bids consistently; this will have made it difficult to identify the plans that represented the best value for money.”

19. On LEPs the same NAO report says that when the Growth Deals were agreed, the Department did not have enough assurance that they had the resources, capacity and capability to do this, and LEPs do not yet have an established track record of delivery. 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 the resources available to them to be sufficient to meet the expectations placed on them by government. Additionally, 69% of LEPs reported that they did not have sufficient staff and 28% did not think that they had sufficiently skilled staff.

20. The NAO also found they were unable to obtain information on senior staff remuneration from publicly available accounts for 87% percentage of LEPs. The median number of full-time equivalent staff employed by LEPs is 8.

Conclusion

21. Over the past six years huge changes have taken place with regard to the way central government grants to regions are administered. But this has largely happened below the radar of public perception. Across England LEPs now control an annual budget of £2 billion. Hundreds of millions of pounds worth of local investment funds are now in the hands of our Local Enterprise Partnership, a self-selecting group of big-business(men) (gender specific term deliberate), who appear to be unaccountable to anyone and unrepresentative of the local economy. This has happened irrespective of whether or not any formal devolution has occurred. There appear to be no metrics by which the investment decision they make can be evaluated and no mechanism for scrutiny. Likewise there appears to be no mechanism for publicly accountable scrutiny of any conflict of interest that might arise in the way these funds are distributed. What has happened to democracy?

January 2017

Main References Sources
Relevant Government papers

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-growth-realising-every-places-potential-hc-7961

Click to access PU1524_IUK_new_template.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/heart-of-the-south-west-growth-deal

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-enterprise-partnerships-leps-funding-from-the-regional-growth-fund-rgf

Heart of the South West Growth Deal proposal

Click to access Growth-Deal-2015-Heart-of-SW-Final-3-4.pdf

Parliamentary briefing papers on Regional Growth, Growth deals and LEPs:

Click to access SN07120.pdf

Click to access SN05874.pdf

Click to access SN05651.pdf

National Audit Office Reports

Click to access Local-Enterprise-Partnerships.pdf

Click to access 10285-001-Local-economic-growth.pdf

Click to access Progress-report-on-the-regional-growth-fund.pdf

Independent Report University of Plymouth

Click to access rtpi_research_report_leps_economic_planning_and_delivery_south_west_march_14_2016.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Spin

Hinkley C: possible £2 billion hit on British taxpayers played down

“Taxpayers still face a possible £2billion bill for building a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point despite a minister’s claim they were ‘fully insulated’ from the cost.

The Government is underwriting loans to the builders of the plant, which is a joint project with France and China.

This is despite Business Secretary Greg Clark telling MPs in September that after Prime Minister Theresa May paused the project, taxpayers were now protected.

Despite the remarks, the £2billion guarantee – which would kick in if the companies involved in the project collapse – are still counted as a ‘contingent liability’ on the Government’s accounts.

Shadow minister Barry Gardiner told The Times he had been misled by Mr Clark’s response. …

… After work resumed, Mr Clark told MPs: ‘EDF has confirmed to me that it will not be taking up that £2 billion guarantee, so the taxpayer is fully insulated from the costs of construction.’

EDF confirmed by letter it did not ‘anticipate’ calling on the guarantee.
But in October, in a written statement to both MPs and peers, ministers said: ‘The government is confirming that it has approved the provision of a guarantee for up to £2billion to the project for the construction of its new EPR nuclear plant in Somerset, backed by commitments from the shareholders.’

They added: ‘The guarantee will be available from 2018 to 2020 if necessary conditions are met and is at government’s discretion.

‘Even if made available, and EDF have indicated to the secretary of state for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that it is not their current intention to take up the guarantee, I judge the likelihood of any call under the guarantee to be very low.’

After the memo came to light yesterday, Mr Gardiner said: ‘The assurance that Greg Clark gave me was categoric: EDF were not taking up the guarantee.
‘Whilst I took him at his word, it appears that the Treasury were aware the secretary of state was suffering from baroque speech.

‘That is why the guarantee is still marked as a liability on their books.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4090908/Taxpayers-left-2bn-bill-new-Hinkley-Point-nuclear-plant-despite-promises-ministers-insulated-cost.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny

Halt those bulldozers at Hinkley C?

Just how much money is our LEP throwing into this eerily-glowing black and bright green hole? Though maybe it doesn’t think it is such a bad deal when lots of people (perhaps including board members with nuclear interests) are lining their pockets with lucrative pre-construction contracts, training courses and consultancies.

Remember, Somerset County Council is the accountable body for LEP spending, not Devon County Council – and it may also see spending, any spending, in Somerset as a good thing. After all, it’s “growth” – isn’t it?

“After eight years of prevarication, French firm EDF was panicked by Brexit into finally making the “decision” to build a new nuke at Hinkley. Concrete progress? No. Construction of the reactor cannot begin until it has been re-engineered to satisfy regulators here and in France, after discovery of fundamental metallurgical flaws in several French nukes.

Following this, a major component already manufactured in France was tested to destruction (literally) and found to be unsound. Since there is only one foundry in France making these huge steel forgings, and this is unable to meet safety standards, EDF doesn’t know what to do next. We will hear a lot more on this in 2017.”

Source: Private Eye, “Keeping the lights on”, page 9, issue of 23 December 16 – 12 January 17

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jan 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Devolution, East Devon Growth Point, Economy, Golden Triangle LEP, Local Enterprise Partnership

Growth? Not in retail

Local Plans, Local Enterprise Partnership – constantly push growth, growth, growth. But REAL figures tell a different story – with possible big job losses in retail fairly soon across the country, but particularly in retail in our area, where is this ” growth” in jobs and housing construction coming from and going to? There will be no growth if new jobs in one sector are offset by losses in other areas.

“The UK high street suffered its quietest Christmas in almost two decades new figures have shown, just hours after clothing giant Next announced a sharp slump in festive sales.

Retail footfall was at its lowest December level since 1998 – the year consultancy Ipsos Retail Performance first started its Retail Traffic Index.
Depressing updates emerging from retailers suggest that the decline in store footfall wasn’t converted into a lift in online sales and consumers cut back on spending all round. …

… The South West of England and Wales suffered the biggest footfall drop of all the regions, with a year-on-year decline of 14.4per cent.”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4088176/UK-high-street-suffers-quietest-December-TWO-DECADES-shoppers-cut-spending.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, DCC, Democracy, Devolution, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Exmouth, Golden Triangle LEP, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Somerset

“Musical Council Boundaries”

“When the music stops, your local council leader will be here to tell you a story [1]

First, there was “devolution” for the Heart of the South West, which wasn’t devolution at all because it would have sucked powers upwards from localities to a vast “combined authority” covering all of Devon and Somerset, including Plymouth and Torbay [2].

Then came the idea for a Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board (the GEGDB), which would be a joint strategic authority made up of Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge Councils [3]. Joint authorities are in practice run by their officers, not councillors, because the officers negotiate a common acceptable position on a given issue and then serve it up the councillors as the only available option that the four councils will agree on.

Finally (or perhaps not), proposals for a “South Devon” unitary council leaked out last week. This would be an all-purpose council covering East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge, Torbay and Plymouth and, possibly, South Hams (sorry, Mid Devon, you’re out), discharging all existing district council functions plus those of Devon County Council within the new unitary area. Such evidence as is there is suggests the prime movers appear to be Exeter and Plymouth, if only because they refused to back further moves to support the “devolution” proposals.

The Exeter Green Party has written to the leader of Exeter City Council asking the following questions:

What mandate does the City Council have from the residents it serves to:
(a) attempt to reorganise local government decision-making structures?

(b) propose arrangements which would suck key decisions upwards from the elected representatives

of the people of Exeter to a new superior authority – the GEGDB – which would not be directly elected?

(c) propose a strategic authority – the GEGDB – which on the evidence of the 8 November paper would focus solely on economic growth to the exclusion of social and environmental considerations?

When does the City Council plan to publicise its thinking and actively consult residents and businesses on whether they actually want new local government arrangements and, if so, on the form they should take and how any new body might be fully accountable to local people?

It seems clear that the option favoured by Exeter and Plymouth is the South Devon unitary authority. Central government is believed to be offering £1 billion if the unitary is established, complete with an elected mayor. We don’t know what the money would be targeted at – improving public services, infrastructure, or grants to businesses? But a bribe’s a bribe.

A directly elected authority – which is what the unitary would be – is certainly preferable in democratic terms to the other options. But it would be a huge area, currently represented by 237 councillors elected by 105 wards (and that’s without South Hams). So a workable sized council will require a massive cull of elected members (no wonder the leaderships have been playing their cards close to their chests), leading to a weakening of the links between people and their councillors. On present ward boundaries, based on the most recent election results, 123 of the councillors would be Tories – a small majority, which gives pause for thought as to why Labour-run Exeter is so keen on the idea? Of course the new council could be a pathfinder, to be elected by proportional representation, which would change the political balance considerably. Look it’s a pig up there.

Many, many more questions. And meanwhile energy is being diverted away from service improvements into a potentially massive reorganisation. It still feels like the “old politics”. For the time being, we have to await the answers to the Green Party’s highly pertinent questions.

NOTES

[1] You have to have been an aficionado of BBC Radio Children’s Hour in the 1950s to understand the reference!

[2] See my post https://petercleasby.com/2016/09/30/devolution-is-not-control/

[3] The proposals adopted by Exeter City Council’s Executive are at http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/documents/g4903/Public%20reports%20pack%2008th-Nov-2016%2017.30%20Executive.pdf?T=10, page 73.”

https://agreeninexeter.com/2016/12/14/musical-council-boundaries/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), DCC, Democracy, Devolution, EDDC, Golden Triangle LEP, Grant Thornton, Local Enterprise Partnership, Somerset County Council, Transparency

Heart of the South West LEP: where is OUR money going now?

It appears that the “Heart of the South West LEP is dead in the water now that three of its original members have refused to continue to back it and instead are considering their own grouping – the south-west “Golden Triangle” LEP.

Which brings us to that age-old concern: the money. Where did the HOTSW LEP money come from, where was it spent and now, more importantly, what is happening to it now that several big players – who originally underwrote it – have pulled out?

How do we find out [what little there is] – where is the paper trail and where does its “accountability” reside?

This correspondence with the National Audit Office gives some clues:

[Concerns have been raised] about lack of transparency around contracts and spending.

As part of the assurance framework each local enterprise partnership has a nominated local authority that acts as its accountable body, and Somerset County Council (the Council) is the accountable body for the Heart of the South West LEP.

You could therefore consider bringing the matters to the attention of the Council themselves.

Alternatively you may wish to consider bringing the matters to the attention of the Councils external auditor. For this Council, the appointed auditor is Grant Thornton UK LLP.

The engagement lead for the audit is Peter Barber, who can be contacted at peter.a.berber@uk.gt.com or on 0117 305 7897. You should be aware, however, that the NAO has no powers to direct the auditor take further action, as that is a matter of professional judgement to be exercised by the external auditor themselves.

If you are a local elector for the [Somerset?] Council, you also have rights in relation to inspecting and objecting to the Councils accounts, if you feel this appropriate. The NAO has produced Council accounts: A guide to your rights, which sets out these rights in more detail. The guide can be accessed from the link or from our website home page”.”

Council tax payers of Somerset – arise. You, and we, surely have many questions of the council (or better still its external auditors) as to where your (Somerset) and our (Devon and, in particular for us, East Devon) money is going now that the HOTSW LEP has had at least one of its legs cut off.

Have its fingers been cut off? Is the till snapped shut and locked?

Unlikely.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Local” Enterprise Partnerships

The Guardian view on English local identities: a clash of cash against community

Editorial

A court case about whether Chesterfield can leave Derbyshire to become part of Sheffield [Local Enterprise Partnership] illuminates the inexorable wasting of English local government and identity.

Is Derbyshire in the north of England or the Midlands? The question is as old as the redrawing of the map of England following the Norman conquest. But it is no longer such a parochial or academic question as it may seem. Derbyshire’s dilemmas now illuminate what we mean by local democracy and local government in England more generally. That’s because the promotion of English city regions and the money being directed towards the northern powerhouse by the Treasury in London are making a nonsense of historic local identities as well as of England’s long but increasingly derelict traditions of locally rooted democratic municipalism.

Just before Christmas, the high court backed an objection by Derbyshire county council against efforts by Chesterfield, which is in the north of the county, to attach itself to the emerging city region of Sheffield, which comprises Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster, which are all historically part of the various iterations of Yorkshire, its ridings and its more modern subdivisions.

The court did this after Derbyshire complained that if Chesterfield were permitted to redefine itself as part of Sheffield, it would raise the question of whether the county of Derbyshire could be said to exist at all without its second largest town. The county’s case was reinforced by the fact that Chesterfield district has no actual border with Sheffield, from which it is separated by part of the North East Derbyshire district. If Chesterfield were to join Sheffield, it would become an enclave (or, from Sheffield’s viewpoint, an exclave) within its former county. It would be the Nagorno-Karabakh of the east Midlands, leaving the map of Derbyshire resembling nothing so much as a Barbara Hepworth sculpture.

From a financial rather than an identity perspective, Chesterfield’s move makes a certain sort of sense. Faced with continuing financial pressures to cut, sell off or simply abandon swaths of local government services that have existed for generations, English local authorities inevitably clutch at any cash straws they can. The city regions are one of the few straws on offer. They are due to receive £30m in new funding a year and to acquire new freedoms to shape local transport, planning and economic policy.

It is hardly surprising that Chesterfield’s defection was hatched and promoted at the council level, since councillors and council officers are in the frontline of struggling with these austerity-driven realities every day. While the councils did their deal, Chesterfield and Derbyshire opinion was barely considered, the high court ruled, so it must now be properly consulted and taken into account before any decision is taken. An online poll organised by the county council in August, five months after Chesterfield decided to join Sheffield, found 92% of respondents opposed to the move.

That is almost certainly because, for all its proximity to Sheffield, there has never been any serious tradition of Chesterfield regarding itself as part of Greater Sheffield, or of Sheffield seeing Chesterfield as part of South Yorkshire. Chesterfield is today what it has always been, an important town in north-east Derbyshire, famous for the twisted spire of its St Mary’s church, and for having had Tony Benn as its MP in the later period of his parliamentary career. Its possible marriage to the Sheffield city region is overwhelmingly rooted in perceived economic advantage rather than in history or public sentiment. The high court has therefore pitted economic survival against identity and democracy.

The Chesterfield-Sheffield question is of far more than local interest. Local identity matters everywhere. It is tenacious. It runs deeper than the economic or administrative convenience of a bureaucrat’s pen. County identities are medieval in origin but they lurk on in many modern consciousnesses. Ministers mess with them at their peril.

The argument about Derbyshire has only arisen because English local government is in such a desperate state. Austerity in the 2010s is completing the centralisation of local powers begun in the 1980s. Communities like Chesterfield are reduced to scrabbling for a share of the Treasury’s parachute drop of cash to the city regions.

Ministers may talk of a new era of municipal greatness, but it is a hollow sham as long as local authorities lack effective income-raising powers. Unless and until English devolution is reconceived as regions made up from existing counties, cities and boroughs, these arguments will continue, pitting community identity and democracy against economic inequalities and distortions enforced from Whitehall.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/28/the-guardian-view-on-english-local-identities-a-clash-of-cash-against-community

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

“Toshiba seeks financial help with £8bn UK nuclear project” – a knock-on for EDF/Hinkley C?

Our Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership has put almost all OUR eggs into its nuclear egg basket. Not surprising when several of its board members have direct or indirect nuclear interests.

“Toshiba, the technology company at the centre of plans to build more nuclear reactors in Britain, is looking for outside help to fund its £8bn programme after a collapse in its share price.

The Japanese group is in talks with local financial institutions to support the construction of an atomic plant near the Sellafield facility in Cumbria, after running up losses following an accounting scandal.

The emergence of Toshiba’s problems will add to worries over Britain’s nuclear plans after the French energy group EDF, which plans to build the Hinkley Point C station in Somerset, dropped out of France’s CAC 40 index of leading shares.

There is widening concern in the City about the escalating costs of huge nuclear projects, which are damaging company share valuations and undermining the government’s commitment to new nuclear at a time when it has promised to phase out coal-fired power stations.

“It has become difficult for Toshiba to do this (fund the NuGen programme in the north-west of England) on its own,” one source told Reuters, which reported that Toshiba had hired HSBC bank to help find new funds.

On Monday, the Japanese financial regulator recommended that Toshiba be fined 7.37bn yen (£40m) for overstating profits and the share price of the company is down 40% since the start of the year.

Toshiba is a 60% shareholder in the NuGen project to build 3.4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity close to the Sellafield plant, where spent fuel is reprocessed.

Neither Toshiba nor NuGen, a partnership with Engie (formerly GDF Suez) of France, was available for comment. The cost of building three reactors designed by a Toshiba subsidiary, Westinghouse, was estimated two years ago at £8bn but experts believe that figure could have at least doubled. That is in line with the price tag for Hinkley, which EDF puts at £18bn.

The 3.2GW Somerset reactors, to be built by EDF with the help of Chinese state companies, have been given the go-ahead by the UK government but the project is awaiting the final investment decision from France.

This week EDF blamed the 85% holding by the French state and lack of free float shares for its removal from the CAC index. But many analysts in the City of London have released gloomy equity forecasts on EDF, fearing Hinkley might go over budget like the company’s Flamanville reactor project in Normandy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/10/toshiba-seeks-financial-help-with-8bn-uk-nuclear-project

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Spin

Nuclear watchdog to be investigated by – watchdog!

“Nuclear safety watchdog under review after series of accidents

Whitehall is investigating the nuclear regulator after The Times revealed that several serious accidents had been dismissed as posing no safety risk.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has come under fire from experts who argue it is too close to the industry to police it rigorously.

Yesterday an investigation disclosed that the inadvertent discharge of a torpedo at a nuclear submarine docks in Plymouth, a complete power cut at the country’s nuclear weapons base and the contamination of at least 15 workers with radioactive material were among the events it had said were of no concern.

Officials at the Department for Work and Pensions, which is responsible for the ONR, are understood to be looking into whether the regulator is doing enough to keep the country’s reactors, nuclear processing sites and military bases safe.

Although the number of publicly acknowledged accidents has been stable for more than a decade, the rate of incidents judged to be “of no nuclear safety significance” has crept up to more than one a day over the last five years.

Between 2012 and 2015 these included three road accidents involving nuclear material, a dozen leaks and at least 30 fires as well as 70 anomalies on the Atomic Weapons Establishment site at Aldermaston near Reading.

The ONR has said that all of its safety classifications followed international guidelines and insisted that it remained a robust and independent regulator.

Nuclear experts, however, called on the government to launch a review. Stephen Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, said the news had reinforced his suspicions that “the first priority for the ONR is not to frighten the horses”.

He said the body had previously ignored warnings about the safety of extending the lifespan of the AGR, an old reactor design that is still in use at seven sites in the UK, as well as the reliability of the newer EPR model, the latest version of which is due to be installed at Hinkley Point C.

“Ironically, since they became an independent body rather than being part of the Health and Safety Executive [in 2014], they seem to have got worse,” Professor Thomas said. “Independence is just a cheap and easy way for government to wash its hands of its rightful responsibility.

“Independent regulators must be accountable to the public and if it is not through a democratically elected government, who is it through?”

Earlier this year the ONR appointed as its chief executive a career civil servant with no background in nuclear engineering. David Toke, reader in energy politics at the University of Aberdeen and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group, said this suggested that nuclear safety issues were a “low priority” for the organisation.

“Of course there should be more attention to this issue and a discussion about whether the de facto slide towards less nuclear safety in the UK is a good one,” he said.”

© Times Newspapers Limited 2016

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Sellafield nuclear power workers’ pension fight puts all plants at risk of strikes

Yet another problem for our beleaguered Local Enterprise Partnership?

“Serious industrial unrest” at Europe’s biggest nuclear site could threaten the Conservatives’ chances of winning a forthcoming byelection, unions have warned.

The byelection in the marginal Cumbrian seat of Copeland has been described as “Theresa May’s to lose”.

But the Conservative candidate hoping to overturn Labour’s 2,564 majority will have to explain to thousands of workers at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site why the government is trying to downgrade their final-salary pension scheme.

Trade unions representing many of Sellafield’s 10,000 workers have written to the government warning they cannot support either of the options being considered.

The Guardian has seen a letter sent shortly before Christmas to Lady Neville-Rolfe, minister of state at the business department. It comes from the Prospect union, which represents more than 5,000 Sellafield engineers and specialists.

The letter, signed by Prospect’s deputy general secretary, Dai Hudd, on behalf of his union, the GMB, Unite and Aslef, tells the minister “serious industrial unrest” cannot be ruled out by workers employed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

The NDA is the public body that owns Sellafield, a huge site in Copeland that processes nuclear waste from the old Windscale nuclear power station, where a fire in 1957 caused the UK’s worst nuclear accident.

It says: “Employees across the NDA estate fought hard to secure the statutory pension protections that currently apply. There will be an understandable adverse reaction with any proposals that trample over those protections.

“They will certainly not respond well to a raid on their pension benefits intended to achieve arbitrary savings agreed between the NDA and the Treasury, and agreement to which the workforce and their representatives played no part.

“If the NDA proceeds with its proposed consultation in its current form there will inevitably be a significant reaction from the members affected. The likelihood of serious industrial unrest cannot be ruled out. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/28/sellafield-tory-conservative-byelection-cumbria-unions-copeland

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Comments

1 Comment

Hinkley C safety – can it be guaranteed? Who will guard the nuclear guards?

“The watchdog that oversees nuclear safety has been accused of playing down the seriousness of hundreds of serious mistakes at power plants and military bases.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation [ONR] is responsible for the regulation of safety at nuclear sites and grades incidents with an International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) score.

Between 2012 and March 2015, the ONR gave 973 incidents a score of ‘zero’ – meaning there had been ‘no nuclear or radiological safety significance.’
This included an incident where a vehicle carrying nuclear material on the M1 hit a lorry and instances where workers at the main nuclear warhead base at Aldermaston in Berkshire were contaminated.

The ONR only issued an INES score of one – which amounts to ‘minor problems with safety components’ – 90 times during the same period. … “

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4068010/Nuclear-safety-watchdog-downplayed-hundreds-mistakes-including-road-crashes-involving-vehicles-carrying-radioactive-material-fires-power-stations.html

How will our Local Enterprise Partnership resolve this one – with so many of its board having conflicts of interest with their own nuclear interests!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Tim Jones

Totnes resident objects to planning application due to LEP board member involvement

Response to the resubmission of planning application 0412/15/F Brimhay by SDRHA.

Community, Consultation and Land

We strongly object to this application on the following grounds:

” … 2/ This application cannot be considered in an unbiased way for the following reasons.

This application was developed under the authority of Tim Jones, in his position as director in charge of property at Dartington Hall Trust. Tim Jones, or the Heart of the South West L.E.P., has not publicly disclosed any relationship or links to this Brimhay application.

Tim Jones was a founder, chairman and is a current a director or the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership. In this role he oversees creation of plans for “devolution” of powers to Devon County Council and South Hams District Council. In this position, Mr Jones has significant influence over both councils and their officers. In his other roles as major property developer, financer, founder and controller of Devon and Cornwall Business Council, vice chair of PACB, prominent with the chamber of commerce as well active in a number of non-transparent organisations, he exerts yet more influence. These influence are not disclosed, transparent, or accountable in this application.

The HOSW LEP documentation repeatedly states that they wish to “overcome barriers to planning”. However they do not give details on which barriers or how they intend to overcome them. Barriers to planning include local communities wishes, protected species laws, and environmental protection laws, and quotas for lower cost housing, to name but a few.

Therefore, due to the above mentioned, this application cannot be considered by officers in this council in an unbiased way. …”.

Awkward.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Dec 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

Devolution deal quashed as people not consulted on whether they wanted it!

Surely this applies to Devon and Somerset where NONE OF US have been asked if we want it?

“A consultation on whether to expand the Sheffield City Region to include the Chesterfield area has been ruled unlawful by the High Court.

The judicial review was brought by Derbyshire County Council, which objects to the inclusion of Chesterfield – which lies within its administrative area – being included in the Sheffield City Region.

Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the consultation failed to ask local people a direct question about whether or not they believed Chesterfield should become part of the Sheffield City Region. The judge said that this made the consultation unlawful and unfair and said that Sheffield City Region had provided no reasonable justification as to why it had not included such an obvious and fundamental question in the questionnaire.

The judgment does not quash the Sheffield City Region’s devolution consultation but further consultation is required before it can be considered by the Secretary of State. …”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29471%3Acity-region-consultation-unlawful-high-court-rules&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Japan scraps useless, eye-wateringly expensive nuclear reactor

“Japan is a scrapping an experimental reactor which has worked for just 250 days of its 22-year lifespan and cost $9bn (£7.2bn).

The Monju reactor, in western Japan’s Fukui city, was designed to burn most of its own spent fuel, eliminating the need to deal with the nuclear waste.
But it suffered its first problems months after it went live, and has not worked properly since.

It would now need billions more for safety upgrades to be restarted.
“We have decided to decommission Monju because restarting it would require significant time and cost,” chief cabinet secretary Yoshihide Suga said.
But officials are not giving up altogether, as it had been hoped the reactor would prove to be the solution for Japan’s scant natural energy resources.

They are understood to be seeking another fast reactor to replace Monju, despite opponents saying Japan should give up the programme and shift to direct burial of spent fuel as waste.

According to the Japan Times, Monju will cost at least 375bn yen ($3.2bn; £2.6bn) to decommission and will only be fully dismantled by 2047.
Local officials oppose losing Monju, which rakes in subsidies and provides jobs.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38390504

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Devolution, Economy, Golden Triangle LEP, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Public Accounts Committee warns on devolution spending scrutiny

Here in Devon and Somerset, we have no idea what our LEP has spent our money on in the past (only vague headlines), no idea who is spending it on what now. We don’t even know how many staff the LEP has, how much they and board members are paid or even where they work from. They boast about securing “economic growth” yet we have no evidence that they are making any impact whatsoever.

Each member of the LEP board has a post that wants to attract “growth funding” to themselves – be it the Chairman of Midas builders or the MD of Supacat which has designs on getting more involved in the nuclear industry – each one has a vested interest in getting the biggest possible slice of the growth cake and ensuring that, even if they don’t get the biggest slice, that there is no cake left for anyone else.

Here is what the Public Accounts Committee has to say.

Additionally, someone somewhere ensured that our LEP was top-heavy with unelected business people and light on local politicians who could at least be voted out. Whose bright idea was that?

“The Public Accounts Committee has issued a renewed warning over scrutiny in devolution deals, saying the government has still not set out how combined authority mayors will be held accountable for public money.

“MPs called on the government to specify what it is trying to achieve through devolution and communicate this clearly to citizens and service users.

The Devolution in England report said that every pound spent by a combined authority mayor – which will be elected for the first time next May – must be traceable by parliament to maintain transparency and accountability.

For example, the review highlighted the ‘opaque’ nature of accountability for the activities of local enterprise partnerships – designed to bring together the public and private sector – which are currently negotiating a revised round of local growth deals funded to the tune of £12bn over five years.

The Department for Communities and Local Government must also do more to demonstrate the link between devolution and economic growth, according to the committee.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said the government’s devolution plans in England have significant implications for the lives of millions of people. …

… Hillier said the government still has serious questions to answer about the benefits of these proposals as “generalisations about the potential benefits” would not be enough.

“The public care about the future of vital local services; about jobs, housing, education,” she stated.

“They want to know not just who is spending their money and to what end, but also how well it is being spent.

“When things go wrong, they want to know who is responsible and how they will be held to account. And, when they elect their first mayors in May, they want to be confident the government has done all it can to protect their interests.”

According to the MPs, there is a “considerable scope for tension” between local government, which is required to deliver and maintain services within a devolved budget, and central government, which provides funding in areas such as skills and transport, and in Greater Manchester, health.

Central government must not “absolve itself of its responsibility to ensure that devolved areas receive adequate funding for sustainable services”, the report stated, and DCLG in particular must ensure devolution benefits work for all local areas and not just central zones or key cities covered by combined authorities, says the committee.

“The government’s annual report on devolution, published this month, does nothing to address these concerns nor to set out a detailed strategic vision for the programme,” Hillier added.

“Every pound of public money spent by an elected mayor, local enterprise partnership or other body must be a pound Parliament can trace. Spending must face robust scrutiny.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/12/pac-repeats-warning-importance-devolution-scrutiny

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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