Reader comment on “Golden Triangle” devolution bid

A reader comment on a Western Morning News article that Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay are talking (in secret) about setting up their own Local Enterprise Partnership”:

“Even though we seem to be dragging ourselves free of the EU, we still seem to be stuck with the EU’s ‘regional’ policies – as imposed by John Prescott with his Regional Assemblies and Regional Development Agencies.

The EU were insistent that our cities should be the economic drivers for regions, and that we should have figureheads – regional Metro Mayors.

The objective is always the same – rather than decentralising power to regions, whole parcels of cities, rural towns, and villages become subject to one imposed rule, with little real democratic accountability; the bigger the authority, the less accountability at local level.

Our council apparatchiks will jump at the chance to build their empires, puff up their importance, and vastly improve their bank balances while they are at it. Out of sight, out of mind – the manufacturers of brown envelopes will be rubbing their hands in anticipation.

As with Police and Crime Commissioners, there will not be any enthusiasm for these positions; hardly anybody will vote; they will be politically tribal and not representative; and they will be distant from ‘the people’. As a result, they will be hugely disliked and distrusted. No change there then.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/plymouth-defends-secret-talks-over-super-mayor/story-29977395-detail/story.html

The ExTorPly* LEP talks continue

ExTorPly = Exeter, Torquay, Plymouth. It gets complicated if it takes in more councils!

Owl suggests it might be called “Rip the Heart out of the South West LEP”, though the acronym RTHOOTSW LEP is a little clunky, even if it includes the word “hoot” in it. Still not happy about the “Golden Triangle LEP” for obvious reasons! But good to see (part of) Devon standing on its own feet, avoiding being sucked into an LEP where Hinkley C in Somerset takes most of the very little money on offer.

Council leaders in Exeter and Plymouth say they are convinced that a bid for devolution for Devon and Somerset is doomed to fail.

Fifteen councils across the region have been working on a joint bid to take over powers and funding now controlled by Whitehall.

But the Heart of the South West has reached a sticking point over the Government’s insistence that significant devolution will require an elected mayor for the region.

As we reported last week, Plymouth and Exeter refused to go along with a vote for all 15 councils to work exclusively with the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership.

David Thomas, the leader of Torbay’s Conservatives, said later that they too would support a rival bid with Plymouth and Exeter.

The two councils said they had written to colleagues across the region “to assure them of their ongoing commitment to joint working to improve skills, productivity and infrastructure in the Heart of the South West”.

They said they were fully committed to working with the other 13 councils on a joint productivity plan – but would continue to explore other opportunities.

“We believe that there will be no significant devolution deal for tuhe Heart of the South West given the lack of a consensus on the issue of an elected mayor/leader with responsibility for receiving devolved powers and financial resources from Whitehall,” they said.

“The Government’s position on this has been very clearly outlined by the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid.

“We feel it would be remiss of us not to explore the sub-regional opportunities for further and faster delivery of economic growth with a deal that doesn’t rule out an elected mayor/leader as described above.”

A meeting of the Heart of the South West leaders’ and chief executives’ group on Friday heard that Plymouth and Exeter councils had met with Torbay to discuss the potential to work together on a sub-regional level to drive economic growth further and faster.

Today’s letter defends the “exploratory discussions”, which were not attended by Torbay’s Mayor, Gordon Oliver.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/plymouth-defends-secret-talks-over-super-mayor/story-29977395-detail/story.html

Exeter Green Party wants transparency on proposed LEP and other secret partnerships including with East Devon

“Proposals by Exeter City Council to restructure decision-making in Devon are being challenged.

In a letter to Council Leader, Pete Edwards, Exeter Green Party has raised concerns about the ways Exeter City Council is developing initiatives to restructure the authority – all of which will give binding powers to new layers of local government.

[The letter states]

Exeter Green Party is deeply concerned about the ways in which the various initiatives to restructure local government decision-making in Devon are being pursued. We are referring to:

The “devolution” proposals for a combined authority covering the Heart of the South West, from which we understand the City Council withdrew at a meeting on 9 December.

The proposal for a Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board (GEGDB], agreed in principle by the City Council’s Executive on 8 November.

The proposals which emerged at the end of last week for a South Devon Unitary Council, involving Exeter, Plymouth, East Devon, Teignbridge, Torbay and possibly South Hams councils.

We do not at present wish to take a position on the merits of the various alternatives, though there are many concerns and questions to be addressed.

At this stage, we ask the following questions:

1. 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?

2. 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?

Because we believe there should be public debate now on these issues, we are issuing this letter to the media. I am also sending a copy to Karime Hassan.
I look forward to your reply.

In a surprise move proposals emerged at the end of last week for a new super South Devon Unitary Council. It could see a ‘super mayor’ governing Exeter, Plymouth, East Devon, Teignbridge, Torbay and possibly South Hams councils.

The Greens concerned that decisions are being made without any public consultation or mandate to give power to unelected bodies.

Exeter City Council had previously committed itself to the Heart of the South West “devolution” proposals for a combined authority. It is now understood Exeter City Council withdrew from this plan at a meeting on Friday. The Council’s Executive has also agreed in principle to set up a ‘Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board’ with East, Mid and Teignbridge Councils, and give this new body powers to make binding decisions on each Council.

Green Party spokesperson, Diana Moore, said:”These decisions about major changes to the structure and functions of local government are taking place behind closed doors.

“We want to know what mandate the City Council has for these proposals and when they intend to consult residents and businesses on whether they actually want new local government arrangements.

“They need to be transparent about their intentions and the power they intend to give away.

“The proposed arrangements would take away key decisions from the elected representatives of the people of Exeter and hand them to distant unelected bodies.

“The economic growth priorities of any of these bodies doesn’t address social and environmental considerations or the rising inequality in the city.

“Councils must focus on their duty to co-operate – and do that to the benefit of local people and not obsess about new structures which will only serve vested interests.

“Any new proposals for local government must be fully consulted on and that whatever structure emerges must be transparent and accountable to local people.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/strong-concerns-raised-over-exeter-s-role-in-super-mayor-plans/story-29977062-detail/story.html

Politics South West: pigs ears, economy with the truth and foxes

Click here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08401p5/sunday-politics-south-west-11122016

for more on the Bermuda … whoops … Golden Triangle LEP described by one MP as a “pig’s ear” … (with Sajid David denying saying something that it is shown he said)

Angela Peddar of the [Lack of] Success Regime saying that it has no plans to cut anything … and then talks about cutting services …

Bringing back fox-hunting (so important in this crisis-ridden world …

and more promises on rail lines and avoiding flooding.

Best get a stiff drink first … it isn’t pretty.

Devolution for Dummies

Owl THINKS these are the current choices:

Heart of the South West LEP – except Exeter, East Devon and Exeter are refusing to play. Does not include an elected mayor at present.

Greater South West – proposed by Communities Minister Sajid David – which seems to stretch from Dorset in the east, Somerset to the north and Cornwall in the south – and any other bits left out of other Devolution deals around that area. Does include an elected mayor.

Greater Exeter Travel to Work Area – East Devon, Exeter, Mid-Devon and Teignbridge – as proposed at the secretive Greater Exeter Visioning Board. Silent about whether it includes an elected mayor.

All permutations include adding unelected business people and a single focus – economic growth.

No-one seems to have put a simple unitary Devon in the melting pot, or a unitary combination chosen from a Devon/Cornwall/Dorset pick-and-mix. Nor has anyone spelled out the constitutional basis for these changes.

But it’s probably only a matter of time!

Could it be more complicated? Hardly.
Will it get sorted so that it benefits anyone but big businesses? Answers on a postcard to Paul Diviani, Leader, East Devon District Council!

Torbay wants in to the “Golden Triangle” ( let’s hope it isn’t a Bermuda Triangle!)

“A ‘GOLDEN Triangle’ of local authorities could lead South Devon to a new and prosperous future with government investment running into hundreds of millions of pounds.

That’s the belief of Torbay Council ruling Conservative Group leader David Thomas who has confirmed that very preliminary talks have been held to change the way councils are run in South Devon and the county.

Under the new structure Torbay and Plymouth would unite and then invite Exeter to join the devolution party as a ‘real Trinity’ for the future.

But one politician reportedly against a new ‘super’ South Devon council is Torbay mayor Gordon Oliver who has decided to snub the talks. He is believed to be still firmly behind working with Devon County Council who, with other partners, have already submitted a devolution bid of their own.

Cllr Thomas revealed: “I had a phone call to ask if I would attend an informal meeting of the chief executives and leaders of Torbay, Plymouth and Exeter councils.

“The leader in Torbay is Mayor Oliver. I was asked as leader of the majority group because anything that moves forward will be a council decision.

“Once I was invited the mayor made it clear that that he did not wish to attend the meeting. He sent out an email saying he was not attending and that he did not want to deal with Exeter and Plymouth. He was only interested in a Devon unitary authority.”

“The deal that we would look at bidding for would be £1billion for the local economy and it would bring decision making into the South West.

“”This could be the opportunity for a Golden Triangle, a real trinity. I can only speak for Torbay. The only way this can work is if the two unitariies, Torbay and Plymouth, work together. Exeter can be asked to join shortly afterwards. Any other districts may be part and parcel of this.”

He said under the new potential deal, the councils will not change. The new authority would sit above. But he said part of the devolution deal is that they would have to have an elected leader, commissionaire or mayor.

Cllr Thomas said: “These are very early days, but the rules of the game as set out by the government minister is that if you want devolution powers you have to an elected leader. You have to have to have that if you want the Full Monty.”

He claimed some of the local authorities in the Devon/Somerset devolution deal do not want to have an elected mayor at the helm and he added: “My view is why would you not want to investigate the opportunities here?

“I cannot understand why the elected leader or any councillor would not want to investigate this potential route on the table. We all know the problems we have in Torbay including deprivation and declining budgets. This is an opportunity to resolve some of those issues.”

He said he had spoken to his group and they are ‘on board.’ He said he had also talked to opposition group leaders and, although they have yet to take it to their members, they have said personally the options should be explored.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/golden-triangle-could-lead-south-devon-to-new-future-worth-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds/story-29971579-detail/story.html

So, “a route on the table” and he’s on board! Imagine if only the 3 councils ganged up – where would they have their HQ!

Devolution: more information on the Guy Fawkes-style plotting …

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/plans-for-super-mayor-for-plymouth-and-exeter-discussed-at-meeting/story-29971551-detail/story.html

“Hinkley Point designers face fraud inquiry”

The company that designed Britain’s proposed £18 billion nuclear plant is facing a criminal investigation on suspicion of aggravated fraud, forgery and endangering life.

Prosecutors in Paris have opened an inquiry into allegations that a factory owned by Areva, the French nuclear group, has been falsifying safety tests for decades.

The factory has already made one key component for the reactors planned at Hinkley Point in Somerset but this was scrapped amid safety fears and a replacement was ordered from Japan. The Hinkley Point reactors were designed by Areva and are being built by Électricité de France (EDF), the state-owned company.

EDF is poised to take over the factory at the centre of the inquiry, which may be asked to make further components for the Somerset reactors, a Paris source claimed. The Hinkley Point project, in which EDF has a two-thirds stake and China General Nuclear Power Group the remaining third, is designed to produce seven per cent of Britain’s electricity.

Critics say that the criminal investigation raises searching questions about the trustworthiness of the French engineers behind the scheme.

“From a British background, it is inconceivable that nuclear safety documents should be falsified,” said Paul Dorfman, honorary senior research fellow at University College London’s Energy Institute.

“How can one be assured of the quality of key nuclear materials given the fact that the French have been falsifying documents and installing faulty equipment that is key to nuclear safety?”

The investigation comes after the discovery of a flaw in a 116-tonne reactor pressure vessel installed in a project at Flamanville in Normandy.

The French Nuclear Safety Authority has ordered tests to determine whether the component could crack and cause a nuclear accident. The watchdog says that it will decide next year whether to allow the plant to open. Prosecutors were told of the flaw, which involves an unexpectedly high level of carbon in the steel.

Prosecutors in Paris said that a criminal investigation had been launched into claims that the Areva factory at Le Creusot in Burgundy, which made the component, deliberately faked the safety tests.

The factory made a reactor vessel head of the same kind for Hinkley Point. This has had to be cut up and subjected to checks to determine the extent of the risks caused by the excess carbon.

EDF said it was confident that its Normandy plant would get the green light. After discovering the problem at Flamanville, an inquiry was launched at Le Creusot factory, which revealed evidence that safety tests had been falsified over the past 60 years. The investigation initially concerned 400 files but was subsequently extended to 9,000.

France’s nuclear watchdog said that 87 “irregularities” had been detected so far, either in nuclear components or in the casing used for their transportation.

Inspectors said that documents stating that the components were safe were based on the wrong figures.

Prosecutors believe that the irregularities might have resulted from a deliberate attempt to cover up a safety risk. About 20 of the irregularities involved components intended to be used in the new reactor in Flamanville. The rest were proposed for reactors already operating in France. A further inspection by the nuclear watchdog found that components made in Japan had the same problem of excess carbon.

Pierre-Franck Chevet, chairman of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, said: “We are facing a serious anomaly.”

EDF was ordered to undertake emergency tests on 18 of its 58 French reactors to determine whether they were safe. All but four have now been given permission to re-start.

A spokeswoman for Areva said that the company would co-operate fully with the investigation.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hinkley-point-designers-face-fraud-inquiry-p5fs686wm

More on those devolution shennanigans!

Robert Vint, South Hams Lib Dem, DCC:

We’re slowly piecing this together… Apparently Exeter City, Plymouth City & East Devon Council don’t want to be part of the HOTSW scheme and want to set up their own unitary authority – presumably with their own unitary Mayor. South Hams have apparently just been invited to join but West Devon have not. John Tucker says that SHDC [South Hams District Council] have not been involved in these discussions but that Torbay City and Teignbridge Council have. It seems odd that all the South Devon councils except South Hams & West Devon knew about this. There’s apparently a meeting of chairs of councils today where this will all come up. All very cloak & dagger!!”

STOP PRESS: have Exeter and Plymouth just killed off the Devon and Somerset LEP?

BBC Spotlight just now (iPlayer soon and probably at 6 pm)

Martyn Oates reported many councillors angry that they had no idea of the “southern Devon” supermayor bid.

AND, he said, there was an attempt to get unanimous approval of a bid to retain the current Devon and Somerset LEP which Plymouth and Exeter refused to support.

Spotlight: BBC Spotlight today

Exeter/Plymouth/Torbay super- mayor? Meeting in Cullompton today

“Council leaders from across south Devon are understood to be discussing plans for a “super-mayor” at a meeting today.

Leaders from Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay councils are meeting in Cullompton to discuss a bid for devolution.

It is thought that a central part of the proposal is to create a single authority stretching from Exeter to Plymouth, and including Torbay.

The authority would be run by an elected mayor.

At the South West Growth Summit in Exeter in October Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, told local politicians that they could forget any meaningful devolution unless they embraced the idea of an elected mayor for the whole region.

In private tweets yesterday Peter Doyle, head of external affairs for Devon County Council, wrote: “The very odd Southern Devon unitary plan will make tomorrow’s Heart of SW devolution meeting interesting to say the least.

“Hard to see any sense in breaking Devon into two unitary councils. Huge reorganisation costs, duplicates county council services, zero savings.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/plymouth-could-get-an-elected-super-mayor/story-29970966-detail/story.html#UJzDE8H1jAitmWS5.99

TWO unitary authorities? What’s left apart from North Devon? Does “Exeter” include East Devon or not? And where does the LEP fit in, if at all?

Of course, we, the council tax payers, will be the last to know!

And bet your bottom dollar the “same old” (vested interest) politicians and (vested interest) business people, same troughs, same snouts.

South devon wants breakaway mini-devolution – north Devon excluded

“Plans to unite south Devon under a single elected mayor follow a visit to the county by the Local Government Secretary Sajid Javid in October when he made it clear that only “ambitious” devolution bids including mayors would get new money and significant powers.

It cuts across an existing devolution bid covering the whole of Devon and Somerset which has already been submitted to the government.

All of the councils involved in the new proposals had signed up to the earlier bid – but there has been growing frustration at its slow progress and the refusal of the councillors leading it to accept a mayor.”

BBC Devon Live website

The item does not state which parts of South Devon this includes.

CORRECTION:

it does:

“Exeter City Council and the two unitary authorities in Plymouth and Torbay are leading the initiative which would see a new combined authority stretching from Exeter to Plymouth.”

It comes hot on the heels of a plan to create a much more official “Exeter Travel to Work Area” including Exeter, East Devon, Mid-Devon and Teignbridge. Including bringing on board unelected business people to make decisions for us, of course – none of that pesky democracy here, thank you!

Whither Devon and Somerset now? And whither North Devon and its hinterland?

Oh, oh, trouble: a mini Local Enterprise Partnership or a maxi East Devon Business Forum on its way?

Another unelected, unaccountable, non-transparent secret society on its way?

Another shady group of “private sector representatives and business community” Tories wetting their pants with the excitement of yet another trough for their snouts?

Cabinet Agenda for 14 December, 2015
Item 19
Page 147

The “Exeter Travel to Work Area (TTWA) area recommendations:

Click to access 141216combinedcabagendafinals.pdf

“It is presently proposed that the desired formal body for the Exeter TTWA will be a ‘Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board’ (GEGDB) including the local authorities covering the Greater Exeter functional economic area.

The Board would be a Joint Committee under s101 (5), 102 Local Government Act 1972 and s9EB Local Government Act 2000 and pursuant to the Local Authorities (Arrangement for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2012.

It will comprise the 5 local authorities [Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and DCC] as voting members

and a number of non-voting co-opted private sector /other representatives drawn from the wider business community.

This approach was agreed by Exeter City Council in principle on 8 November and is now being considered by the other potential partners.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE CASE STUDIES

BRISTOL

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

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

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

Neither the LEP nor Mr Ferguson would explain the payments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are some of the most shocking examples…

1. ESTATE AGENT HAD OFFICES RENOVATED FOR £40K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. BANKER’S OWN CASTLE GOT £13K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. SAUDI ROYALS’ FIRM GOT £60K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Mail investigation into LEPs – part 1

LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

What are LEPs?

Local Enterprise Partnerships were set up by the coalition government in 2010. They control billions of pounds of public money, which they are supposed to use for investment that will help drive economic growth in their region. They replaced Regional Development Authorities. But unlike RDAs, LEPs were never set up in law and are ‘voluntary bodies’. This means that, despite making decisions over billions of pounds, many have no legal structure.

How many of them are there?
There are 39, one in every region in England.

Who sits on them?
LEPs are led by boards of local authority officials and private business bosses. According to the rules set out by the Government, the boards must be chaired by a businessperson and at least half the members must be from the private sector. But under the Government’s ‘light touch’ regulation of LEPs, the bodies are otherwise free to make their own decisions on how to appoint board members.

How powerful are they?
LEPs have been given £7.3billion of taxpayers’ money so far – and in last week’s Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond promised them another £1.8billion. Although the money they control is kept in council accounts, LEP boards have free rein to decide where it goes.

Are they transparent about how they spend our money?
Despite being asked for details of all their expenditure via Freedom of Information requests, they were unable or unwilling to provide details of at least £3.7billion of the money they have been given.

Some LEPs refused to provide any information at all for more than five months – and many still refuse to answer key questions about payments they have made.

No firm rules were made about how transparent LEPs had to be about how they used public money, or how grants were made. And no rules were made which prevent the board members from benefiting from grants. In March, the National Audit Office found LEPs were ‘not as transparent to the public as we would expect’. It found no details of the pay and perks of senior staff available to the public at 87 per cent of LEPs. Four in ten did not publish a register of interests.

How are they scrutinised?

Incredibly no real scrutiny of LEPs appears to exist. The Government claims it is the job of councils to check on their decisions.

But no councils contacted by the Mail were willing to investigate the questionable payments we found. In fact, many did not appear to understand they were supposed to be carrying out independent scrutiny. The NAO said Ministers’ ‘light touch approach to assessing value for money’ was at risk of becoming ‘no touch’, relying on conversations with the LEP and ‘self-reporting’ to assess how well they are doing.

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

Hinkley nuclear plants – tsunami threat?

“Scientists have warned that Britain’s coastal areas and infrastructure are under threat from tsunamis.

New research has revealed how the British Isles have been hit by giant waves at a much higher and intense frequency that previously believed.
One tsunami reached more than 60ft in height, with warnings that the waves could devastate coastal installations such as power stations and shipping ports.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3999354/Britain-s-coastal-towns-nuclear-power-stations-risk-TSUNAMIS-caused-undersea-landslides-scientists-warn.htm

The illustrative map shows the vulnerable areas include the Hinkley nuclear plants.

Asking for trouble …! A name for south-west regional “growth” area

Western Morning News asked for names to describe the south-west similar to “Northern Powerhouse” and “Midlands Engine”.

The two suggestions left in comments on their website shows that our Local Enterprise Partnership has a long way to go before imprinting itself positively on our hearts and minds. They are:

South West Back Burner
and
South West Treasure Chest

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/can-you-create-an-identity-for-the-south-west/story-29950197-detail/story.html

Hinkley C: throwing bad money after bad?

“In the week Britain exports electricity to France for first time in four years, Gérard Magnin says renewable power will match Hinkley Point C on cost:

The French nuclear industry is in its “worst situation ever” because of a spate of plant closures in France and the complexities it faces with the UK’s Hinkley Point C power station, according to a former Électricité de France director.

Gérard Magnin, who called Hinkley “very risky” when he resigned as a board member over the project in July, told the Guardian that the situation for the state-owned EDF had deteriorated since he stepped down, with more than a dozen French reactors closed over safety checks and routine maintenance.

The closures have seen Britain this week exporting electricity to France for the first time in four years. An industry report on Tuesday also warned that the offline reactors could lead to a “tense situation” for energy supply in France, in the event of a cold snap this winter.

Instead of backing new nuclear, the UK and France should capitalise on falling wind and solar power costs and help individuals and communities to build and run their own renewable energy projects, said Magnin. He founded an association of cities switching to green energy, joined the EDF board in 2014, and is now director of a renewable energy co-op in France.

“The most surprising [thing] for me is the attitude of the UK government which accepts the higher cost of electricity … in a time where the costs of renewables is decreasing dramatically,” he said. “In 10 years [when Hinkley Point C is due to be completed], the cost of renewables will have fallen again a lot.”

Of the Hinkley C design, known as the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), Magnin said: “A lot of people in EDF have known for a long time the EPR has no future – too sophisticated, too expensive – but they assume their commitments and try to save the face of France.”

The UK’s business department conceded in September that by the time Hinkley is operational the price of electricity guaranteed to EDF will be above the comparable costs for large scale solar and onshore windfarms. Officials argued that using renewables instead would cost more in grid upgrades and balancing the intermittent nature of wind and solar.

But in a comment article for the Guardian, Magnin said renewables would still be able to match new nuclear. “Renewable energies are becoming competitive with fossil fuels and new nuclear, such as Hinkley Point, where EDF will try to build the most expensive reactors in the world and provide electricity at an unprecedented cost,” he wrote.

A spokesman for EDF said the company was confident its reactors in France would restart soon after tests were complete.

He added: “EDF has full confidence in the EPR design which is why we and our Chinese partners CGN have invested £18bn in our project at Hinkley Point C. Final testing is underway for our EPR unit in Taishan in China which is due to be operational next year. As our chairman Jean-Bernard Lévy said recently, the EPR is a technology of the future, combining performance, safety and predictability.”

On Wednesday the European commission is due to publish plans on how it will support an increasing amount of renewable energy on Europe’s grids, and how it will meet its climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement. Around seven or eight draft pieces of legislation are expected in the “winter package”, plus funding for cleaner energy, but green groups fear renewables will lose the priority they get on electricity grids.

Magnin said that the EU’s climate targets are used in France as a way to maintain a status quo which sees nuclear – a low-carbon power source – provide around three quarters of the country’s electricity. “Climate change issues are used as arguments to maintain the current system,” he said.

Wind and solar provide less than 4% of France’s electricity, but Magnin said the European commission and governments should support community-owned green energy projects to grow that share. Such an approach would overcome opposition to renewable power sources, and secure funding, he said.

Separately on Tuesday, the trade association for national grids across Europe issued a warning that France was faced with its lowest supply of power from nuclear in a decade because of plants being taken offline for safety checks.

The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity said that further reactors would be taken offline, potentially leaving France dependent on imports in December and February, depending on how cold the weather is. But it said that Europe as a whole had sufficient power plants to cope with normal and severe conditions over the winter.

“Identifying the problems facing France and the UK this winter only goes to highlight the importance of investing in new capacity. Events across the Channel have shown that relying on old capacity is risky, with France’s nuclear plants proving as unreliable as our coal-fired ones,” said Dr Jonathan Marshall, energy analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a UK-based thinktank.

“At home, turning to old and dirty coal plants is not a long-term solution, so encouraging investment in new lower-carbon kit – solar, wind and a small amount of new gas capacity – should be at the top of the government’s list of priorities.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/29/french-nuclear-power-worst-situation-ever-former-edf-director

Has DCC Leader John Hart just killed off Devon and Somerset devolution plans?

Agenda item
Councillor John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council

Meeting of Exeter Board, Monday 21st November 2016 5.30 pm (Item 31)

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Councillor John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council who spoke on the future direction and plans of the County Council in light of Government policy and continued cuts to local government funding – 2017/18 set to be the 8th consecutive year since 2009 of further restrictions, the precise nature of cuts to become clearer as part of the budget setting process in the New Year.

Having recently met Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, Councillor Hart expanded on latest developments in the Devolution debate.

A number of areas such as Norfolk and Suffolk had withdrawn interest and, whilst the Secretary had urged a joint Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset bid, Councillor Hart outlined the disparity of views across the region for this approach.

Quarterly meetings for the Leaders of Devon, Cornwall, Torbay and Plymouth councils continued to be held and, although Somerset now also participated, within that County the views of districts diverged.

Whilst funding of £15 million per year associated with the adoption of the Mayoral system would be available there was no enthusiasm for an extra tier of local government and this sum represented a fraction of the overall County Council budget.

With regard to two independent studies looking into potential local government reorganisation in county areas for the County Councils Network, he asserted that County/District relationships in Devon were much improved since the previous ruling on re-organisation as evidenced by various joint initiatives with the Districts, the National Parks and the LEP. However, he suggested that some Devon Districts would face increased financial challenges with changes in New Homes Bonus rules.

In his meeting with the Secretary he had urged greater funding commitment for training and skills given the gap of some 20% between the SE and the SW in productivity and he emphasised the value of apprenticeships, including for small businesses.

He thanked the voluntary/community sector for the role played in supporting the County in the delivery of many of its services referring to Senior Voice, Age Concern and CAB which were valued and supported by the authority. He also referred to ICE where again the input of this sector was invaluable, this initiative being a pilot for the rest of the UK. Community self-reliance was a growing theme and he referred to County initiatives encouraging collaboration between parishes.

Members referred to the impact of the reshaped County Council services on areas such as youth, libraries, reduced rural transport funding of 1.7 million, day care, closure of residential homes, the sale of old people’s homes as well as responsibilities under the Care Act legislation.

Responding, Councillor Hart stated that the old people/residential homes had no longer been fit for purpose and that this was also being reflected in the private sector, the County was retaining its overall £4million County wide bus service subsidy and that the transfer of the library service to Charitable Trusts would facilitate business rate relief.

Responding to the concerns of Members regarding the changes emerging from the Care Act legislation and the shift to community based service delivery, he advised that the County Council’s Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee was leading on consultation and responses to the Wider Devon Sustainability and Transformation Plan which sought to achieve the NHS “Five Year Forward View”.

It was noted that the New Devon Clinical Commissioning Group had offered support towards the changes. The County Councils Network was reviewing changes at the national level. Devon’s older people population exceeded 170,000 – both over 65’s and over 85’s, with no specific Government funding for the latter.

It was noted that the Government had announced a £10 million investment to help strengthen the resilience of the railway line between Exeter and Dawlish and Teignmouth.

The Chair thanked Councillor Hart for attending.

http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=36263