Now we are being told to pay (again) for austerity

Owl says: Wasn’t austerity meant to balance the books, after which we would then be rewarded for making do while it happened? Apparently not.

“Let councils charge higher taxes to pay for austerity, says LGA chair

Local authorities should be given the freedom to impose higher council taxes to help cope with the unprecedented funding crisis facing social care services after a near decade of austerity, the Tory chair of the Local Government Association has said.

James Jamieson urged ministers to inject billions of pounds into adult social care and give councils more control of local health services to protect elderly and disabled people and give them the support they needed. “It is a measure of a good society how well it treats it most vulnerable,” said the councillor.

Reflecting increasing concern over the impact of the reductions, he called for major extra investment in children’s social care, a reversal of cuts to Sure Start-style early-years family support services and a review of special educational needs services funding.

His comments reflect a growing cross-party consensus at local level that national government has little grasp how continuing austerity cuts are hurting local communities and putting people at risk. Last month, Jamieson’s Tory predecessor, Lord Porter, warned that vulnerable people would die because of social care cuts.

There is little confidence that the government will be in a position to deliver its promised three-year spending review this autumn, effectively imposing a further year of austerity on town halls and forcing them to plan for service cuts and staff redundancies they had hoped would be unnecessary.

The LGA warned earlier on Tuesday that the deteriorating outlook for council finances would see a fifth of authorities forced to impose drastic controls on spending this year to avoid insolvency, while a third of councils would struggle to deliver statutory services within three years.

Jamieson, in his inaugural speech at the LGA annual conference in Bournemouth, said the council tax referendum cap, introduced by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2012 and currently set at 2.99%, ought to be abolished. “Residents should be given the choice; if they want to pay more for extra services, why can’t they?”

He said that councils in England had lost 60p out of every £1 of central government funding since 2010, while the number of new child protection investigations had doubled, there had been a 56% increase in homelessness and the number of older people aged over 85 had increased by a third.

The communities secretary, James Brokenshire, said in his speech to the LGA that he recognised councils’ uncertainty over future funding, adding: “It is right that we look at the challenges and opportunities you face, and the funding you are currently relying on, including for social care, when we consider what a sustainable settlement looks like for local government for the coming years.”

Meanwhile, a survey of council chiefs found nearly half expect that Brexit will damage their local economies by reducing exports and overseas investment. This would critically reduce council income from business rates at a time when they were already struggling to maintain the quality and breadth of core services.

PWC’s annual survey of council leaders, chief executives and finance directors revealed that more than half believed that some authorities would get into serious financial difficulty or fail to deliver core services at some point over the next year.

A PWC survey of 2,000 UK users of council services found that 67% were concerned about cuts on their community, up from 61% a year ago; 77% said they or their family had been impacted by cuts; and 51% opposed the need for cuts, up from 48% in 2018.

Councils must hold a referendum if they wish to raise council tax beyond the 2.99% limit. No local authority has taken up the option. In January, Northamptonshire county council was given special dispensation by ministers to raise council tax by an extra 2%, raising £6m, to aid its recovery from insolvency. Similar requests from other councils have been turned down.

Local authority directors of adult social care warned last week that the escalating financial crisis in social care had put tens of thousands of older and disabled people at risk of being denied basic support such as help with washing and dressing.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/02/let-councils-charge-higher-taxes-to-pay-for-austerity-says-lga-chair?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Councils ‘in the dark’ over future funding amid cash warnings”

“Councils in England and Wales have warned they are “completely in the dark” about how much money they will get from central government next year.
The Local Government Association says councils need “urgent guarantees” they will get enough to provide key services like child protection and social care.

More than 90 of its members fear they will run out of money to meet their legal obligations within five years.

Ministers said councils had been given extra funding for vulnerable residents.

The Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government said total funding for local authorities had gone up by nearly 3% this year to £46.4bn, with an extra £650m to help councils provide care for the elderly….”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48827100

Teignbridge: “Husband and wife given £200,000 ‘golden handshake’ when they left council”

“Husband and wife duo Neil and Sue Aggett left their posts at Teignbridge in 2018 and details revealed in the statement of accounts that have now been published on the council’s website reveal the pair received more than £200,000 as compensation for the loss of their employment

Two senior council officers who left Teignbridge District Council via voluntary redundancy as part of a major management reshuffle were given a more than £200,000 ‘golden handshake’, it can be revealed.

Husband and wife duo Neil and Sue Aggett left their posts at the council in 2018 after a combined nearly 60 years of service.

Mrs Aggett, who earned more than £80,000 a year, was the business lead for environment, health and wellbeing. She had spent more than 22 years working at the council.

Mr Aggett, who was the monitoring officer and democratic services manager for the council, had worked for the council for 37 years.

Details revealed in the statement of accounts that have now been published on the council’s website reveal the pair received more than £200,000 as compensation for the loss of their employment.

Mrs Aggett, as council director, was paid £123,586 as compensation for the loss of her employment, plus £8,468 as salary for the work she did between April 1 and April 30 when her employment ceased, and £1,236 in pension contributions, for a total of £133,298.

Mr Aggett, as monitoring officer, was paid £81,288 as compensation for the loss of his employment, plus £16,281 as salary for the work he did between April 1 and June 30 when his employment ceased, and £2,377 in pension contributions, for a total of £100,273.

Questions had previously been asked of the council as to the details of their pay-offs, including by Cllr Liam Mullone, leader of the Newton Says No group of councillors, when he called for full public disclosure regarding the reported large payments made to the pair at May’s annual council meeting.

In response, Cllr Alan Connett, the new portfolio holder for corporate resources, said that he could not reveal the details at that stage as the information in relation to exit packages for employees was exempt from disclosure and could not be revealed at that stage due to the agreements signed as part of their departures.

He added though that the details of the exit packages would be provided in the annual accounts under the Accounts and Audit Regulations, which has now taken place.

Cllr Connett at the council meeting also added: “We will be looking at whether in future we can adopt an open approach in Teignbridge and were we to have future instances of to achieving efficiencies via redundancies, we would want there to be public knowledge of those payments upfront.”

He added that if in future they had to say goodbye to more staff in the interest of efficiency and to save money, it would only be done is there would be a long term saving made and that they would try and be open and transparent about payments.

Phil Shears, the council’s managing director, had said last year that he was restructuring the management of the council which in the long term would save money, which would in turn ‘benefit local tax payers by keeping tax increases low.

He took over as the managing director of the council at the start of 2018 following the departure of former CEO Nicola Bulbeck.

She was given a £264,000 pay-off when she left her role after an 11-year stint in June 2017 including an award of £173,000 as ‘compensation for loss of employment’.

Her leaving package was initially kept secret from the public and the council turned down a Freedom of Information request to release the figures, but was revealed in the 2017/18 statement of accounts.

Mr Shears’s salary when he was appointed was in the range between £94,656 – £105,168 – a 25 per cent reduction on the £141,972 remuneration in the 2015/16 financial year that Ms Bulbeck was paid.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/husband-wife-given-200000-golden-2972079

Is our Local Enterprise Partnership attempting to hi-jack housing and infrastructure funding and control?

Yet another attempt by this unelected bunch of conflicted business people to suck up funding meant for local councils:

“…
Recommendations
2.1. 1.
That the Joint Committee pursue an area-based package to accelerate housing delivery which, at headline level, should include:

a. Resourcing of a strategic delivery team (capacity funding)
b. A major infrastructure delivery fund to unlock growth
c. A small schemes liquidity fund to bring forward stalled sites

2. That the proposed package as set out in appendix 1 is agreed as an
appropriate package to accelerate housing delivery across the HotSW
geography.

3. That the proposed package as set out in appendix 1 is used by officers as
the basis for future engagement with central government and its agencies in seeking to secure a bespoke deal for the HotSW area to structurally embed collaboration with central government on housing delivery.

4. That the Task Force seeks to now engage with senior figures within both Homes England and the MHCLG Growth and Delivery Unit to understand their appetite for driving growth and willingness to work with the Joint Committee on some kind of housing deal.

5. That the Task Force brings back any updates or progress to the Joint Committee to consider in due course.”

Click to access HotSW%20JC%20-%20Housing%20Task%20Force%20report.pdf

The appendix on pages 5 and 6 is particularly worrying.

And where does this leave the (stalled due to political changes) Greater Exeter Strategic Plan?

” Taxpayers ‘funding the outsourcing sector’ “

“A union has claimed taxpayers are propping up the outsourcing industry as local authorities spent £20bn on contracts in the last three years.

The GMB union said that local authorities should be focusing on services “not lining the pockets of private companies”.

Research conducted by Tussell – a data provider on UK government contracts – found that between 2016 and 2018 local authorities spent £20bn on outsourced contracts.

Of these Transport for London was the biggest outsourcer of services by value, with 253 contracts costing an estimated £2.3bn over the three years.

Harrow Council, the Metropolitan police, Northern Ireland Housing Executive and North Lanarkshire Council make up the rest of the top five outsourcers.

GMB found that Veolia was the top supplier of services with contracts worth £1.4bn, followed by IBM, Pennon Group, Amey and Amazon.

The most commonly outsourced service was facilities management on which £5.3bn was spent, followed by waste management, business and IT services.

Rehana Azam, GMB national secretary, said: “If we’ve learnt anything form the collapse of Carillion – it’s that outsourcing doesn’t work.

“At a time when local authority funding is already cut to the bone, this out of control outsourcing places even more risks and burdens on budgets and workers.

“Taxpayers’ cash shouldn’t be propping up an outsourcing industry descending into chaos as companies underbid each other for contracts in a race to the bottom, which will see a serious decline in public services.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/06/taxpayers-funding-outsourcing-sector

Council reserves go up as spending goes down

“English councils have amassed huge cash reserves while blaming budget cuts for reduced spending on services, official figures suggest.

Local authorities, excluding police or fire and rescue authorities, were sitting on £21.8 billion of non-ringfenced reserves last year, £5 billion more than they had in 2017 and £11 billion more than they had at the start of the decade.

Spending on local services, including libraries, parks, bus services and bin collections, has fallen by about 21 per cent since 2010, when the government began slashing the central grant it gives to local authorities. Many councils have also been raising council tax bills.

The Taxpayers’ Alliance, which campaigns for lower tax, said that some authorities were making questionable decisions with their budgets that meant residents “paying more for less”.

Some local authorities, particularly county councils with social care responsibilities, have struggled with chronic shortages and have been dipping into their reserves but others have fared better. District councils, which benefit from business rates and provide less resource-intensive services such as leisure centres or bin collections that can be scaled back or made chargeable, have found their reserves swelling as a proportion of spending.

Since 2010 district councils have grown their non-ringfenced reserves from 50 per cent of service expenditure to 130 per cent. By comparison the savings ratio for county councils has risen from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. This does not include spending on education and public health, which have ringfenced corresponding reserves.

Last year Coventry city council said it could no longer afford to provide free school buses for disabled children, yet it is holding £97.6 million in usable reserves, up 76 per cent on 2017. It is planning another £11 million of cuts.

In its annual accounts the council accepted that it was difficult to explain the need for such high levels of reserves but said that the financial challenges it faced and projects it had established provided a “strong justification”.

David Phillips, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that councils could be taking precautionary measures because they expected more acute funding shortages in future and business rate receipts were volatile. Richard Watts, of the Local Government Association, said: “Reserves are vital to help councils manage growing financial risks to local services . . . They are also used to make long-term investments.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Sign up to help REALLY scrutinise EDDC (or any other council’s) spending last financial year

“Today Bureau Local launches an exciting pilot project for a new kind of collaboration – and we need your help!

During a set period each year the public has the right to inspect the accounts and related documents of every local authority in the UK. The power is supposed to make local government, and other public bodies, more accountable. In reality, most people are unaware of their rights and fewer still are making use of them.

This is where you come in!

We are looking for people to take part in a trial crowdsourced local democracy project, where network members sign up to make use of this law to scrutinise the finances of their local authority throughout June (in England, times vary in other parts of the UK).

We hope you will help us find more information about the property consultants advising local councils on their investments. But you will also be able to use the guide we have created to look at and get copies of other documents that interest you too.

We hope the information we obtain will lead to local and national stories. But we also plan to submit our findings to the government, as we have done previously during our ongoing investigation into council finances, and to take what we learn from this pilot and hopefully turn it into a yearly event.

Read our guide to this project

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RhOWI7FT82xC9Cdgi4an1KZ5rfT78S93NVy69FqVPBQ/mobilebasic

and the law it is based on. Then you can sign up using this spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xbbq3rgu1MfF11ckbVa37pJdFN43V5hCbx6EV_8YnIs/htmlview

Once you have done that let our reporter

garethdavies@tbij.com

know and he will add you to the newly created channel on our Slack.

Also, if you would like to take part in this project or would like to know more, we will be holding an open newsroom in the #newsroom channel of our Slack between 1pm and 2pm on Thursday 6 June.”

https://mailchi.mp/tbij/our-latest-story-is-out-we-announce-a-local-democracy-project-and-a-new-open-newsroom-series-last-chance-to-be-our-new-community-organiser?

Those optimistic “growth” figures from our LEP look even more unlikely

“Calling an organisation the “UK 2070 Commission” is not without its risks. Who cares what happens that far out?

But that, in a sense, is the point. The commission, set up to investigate Britain’s “marked regional inequalities”, publishes its first report today. And, as its chairman Lord Kerslake puts it: “If you want to understand what happens in economics, you need to look 50 years back and 50 years out.” Indeed, as the commission notes: “The reference to 2070 is an explicit recognition that the timescales for successful city and regional development are often very long, in contrast to the short-termism of political cycles.”

A Brexit-addled government nicely illustrates that — not that it’ll have been any surprise to Lord Kerslake, the ex-head of the home civil service. And in these distracted times, the report is doubly welcome. It kills the myth that inequality is not on the rise and helps to explain Brexit — or at least the disparity between Remainer London and the Brexiteer regions.

The report finds London “de-coupling from the rest of the UK”. And to nobody’s benefit. Research from Sheffield University professor Philip McCann finds the “UK is interregionally more unequal” than 28 of the 30 advanced OECD countries, the exceptions being Ireland and Slovakia.

Productivity in the capital is 50 per cent higher than the rest of the UK. Indeed, similar growth between 1992 and 2015 from cities outside London would have added at least “£120 billion to the national economy”. And, on present trends, half of the UK’s future jobs growth will be in London and the South East, which accounts for only 37 per cent of the population.

The effects show up everywhere. Healthy life expectancy in the UK’s poorest regions is “19 years lower”. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found in 2016 that dealing with the effects of poverty costs the UK £78 billion a year. And, even then, poor is a relative term. The children’s commissioner for England found that “a child who is poor enough for free school meals in Hackney, one of London’s poorest boroughs, is still three times more likely to go on to university than an equally poor child in Hartlepool”.

No one wins from such imbalances. People and businesses in the North “miss out on the benefits of growth” — forcing more spending on benefits. But those in “overheating” London and the South East find “increasing pressures on living costs and resources”, so reducing “quality of life”. That forces spending on pricey infrastructure, exacerbating the imbalances. Hence Crossrail, a phase-one HS2 skewed to the capital and an environmentally damaging third Heathrow runway.

So, what to do? Well, here the commission suggests a mix of regional devolution and German-style national planning. It points to the eye-popping €1.5 trillion spent post-unification to help to bring east Germany up to speed with the west. For Britain, it proposes an extra £10 billion spend annually for the next 25 years: a fabulous sum equating to 0.5 per cent of GDP. Lord Kerslake says it’s for government to decide whether it would come from borrowings, tax or such things as levies on uplifts in property values.

Yet he reckons “higher regional growth rates would over time offset this cost”. He emphasises, too, that this is just an initial report, seeking feedback. And don’t the divisions over Brexit underline that Britain needs to do something? Waiting until 2070 isn’t an option.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

“Why councils are bringing millions of pounds worth of services back in-house”

“Chris Morgan got a job as an electrician repairing council houses in Stoke-on-Trent just over five years ago. Although he enjoyed his job, Morgan, 36, says he did not always feel he could raise issues with his line manager. “Our supervisors weren’t always in the trade we were in,” he says. The city council had outsourced its housing repairs service to Kier group in 2008. But since the council brought the work in-house last year, Morgan says he feels happier. “I know my supervisor knows what I’m on about. It makes me more confident,” he says. “We have had extra talks, health and safety training. They have put in a new canteen and showers, so the facilities are better too.” And with a £1,000 pay rise, plus an extra £500 for doing asbestos work, Morgan is also a bit better off.

Now all repairs, maintenance and home improvements to the council’s housing stock, as well as public building maintenance, are in-house.

A report by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) published today, shows that Stoke is far from unusual, with 77% of UK councils planning to bring services back in-house this year. And the report calculates that between 2016 and 2018, at least 220 local government contracts have been brought back into council control.

Labour ‘will ban’ outsourcing of public services to private firms.

Outsourcing began under Margaret Thatcher with compulsory competitive tendering back in the 1980s and was embraced wholeheartely by New Labour. Now attitudes seem to be hardening against contracting out. “What we are seeing is a 40-year experiment in public service delivery being put under the microscope,” says Tom Sasse, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government.

The Labour party has pledged that under a Labour government all frontline services would be provided by the public sector, from railways to social care. Even the Conservative government has been forced to look again at outsourcing, renationalising probation services after outsourcing them disastrously failed. And in the NHS, the cervical cancer screening programme for England will be brought back into the health service later this year, after Capita failed to send more than 40,000 women screening invitations and reminder letters to have a smear test.

“A catalogue of failure has shown that private providers have struggled to generate profit and deliver services of the standards that the community expects,” says Paul Evans, director of NHS Support Federation.

“The rise in insourcing shows that commissioners are being forced to recognise this. Not all contracts display problems, but experience now shows that the risk is high.’

For many public sector bodies, bringing services back in-house is increasingly a pragmatic way to cut costs and improve quality. “On its own, it is not an absolute panacea, but there are significant advantages to bringing services back in-house,” says John Tizard, a former Capita executive and now a strategic adviser on public services.

According to today’s report, 78% of local authorities believe insourcing gives them more flexibility, two-thirds say it also saves money, and more than half say it has improved the quality of the service while simplifying how it is managed.

“Insourcing allows councils to regain control over local services,” says Mo Baines, head of communication and coordination at APSE and author of the APSE report. “Fragmented service delivery through outsourced contracts has failed to deliver on price and quality. It is no longer a viable option.”

Sasse adds: “In the 1980s, there were typically 20% cost savings by outsourcing services like waste collection, but those efficiencies have now been made.”

Steven Griggs, professor of public policy at the local governance research centre at De Montfort University, says: “In the context of austerity, insourcing offers reductions in management costs that can be used to fund frontline services. If you are locked into long-term contracts, then inevitably cuts will fall on remaining services.”

Some councils have opted to insource because the provider walked away from the contract. In Scotland, Highlands council brought cleaning public lavatories back in-house in 2017 after the provider said it wished to terminate the contract because it was no longer commercially viable without increasing the contract value by just under £450,000: a 31% increase.

Griggs says councils are also finding other benefits. “Insourcing builds in-house capacity, facilitates the joining up of services, shores up financial flexibility, keeps the public pound in the local economy and provides opportunities to work with small- and medium-sized businesses to strengthen local supply chains.”

And in some cases it can generate much needed revenue.

In Stoke, the council created a wholly owned trading company, Unitas, to allow the housing repair team to bid for other contracts and generate profits. As housing revenue grant is ringfenced, any surpluses or profits made by the council have to be spent within that budget. But by creating the trading company, any profits could go back to the council’s general fund.

“Last year we returned £4.6m to the council and provided an improved service,” says Steve Wilson, operations director of Unitas. The company has won contracts worth £2m to refurbish civic and other local buildings. It is also hoping to bid for maintenance work with other housing providers. “Rather than line shareholders’ pockets, this approach has generated income for the council, improved customer service and staff morale,” says Carl Brazier, director of housing and customer services at Stoke city council. …

In Cheshire, Halton borough council has saved £750,000 a year by bringing its three leisure centres back in-house, while Nottingham has saved £500,000 annually by insourcing maintenance of its civic buildings and cut the cost of staff catering by 17% by bringing it back in-house.

One of the biggest insourcing programmes has been in the London borough of Islington. Following its 2011 fairness commission, the council has brought back about £380m of services, helping to improve the pay and conditions of 1,200 frontline staff and generating net savings of about £14m for the council. Services brought back in-house include building cleaning; housing repairs and maintenance; waste and recycling; grounds maintenance; and temporary accommodation.

Today’s report argues that the economic case for insourcing means all councils should consider it. “In an age of austerity, councils can no longer afford outsourcing failures. Most can deliver quality services at a better price and without sacrificing the workforce on the altar of the lowest bidder.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/29/bringing-services-back-in-house-is-good-councils?

“English councils warned about use of reserve cash”

Somerset, which oversees funds being spent by our Local Enterprise Partnership, is one of the councils mentioned in this BBC article.

“Some councils in England have been warned they risk running out of cash reserves if recent spending continues.

Analysis by the BBC has identified 11 authorities the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (Cipfa) said would have “fully exhausted” reserves within four years unless they topped them up.

The Local Government Association said councils faced “systemic underfunding”.

The government said councils were responsible for managing their funds.
Councils have faced cuts to their government funding and rising demand for services such as social care, while MPs have warned children’s services are at “breaking point”.

Cash reserves – money held back for specific projects or emergencies, such as flooding – are seen as a measure of financial security.

Between them the 152 major councils in England had £14bn in reserve in March 2018, £500m more than the year before but £400m less than in 2015.

The BBC analysis of government data follows work by Cipfa, which published a “resilience” index of councils, but stopped short of naming those it warned were depleting reserves the fastest.

The warning was based on the latest data available, comparing reserves as of March 2018 with March 2015.

The analysis reveals which 11 of the 152 major English councils have used so much of their reserves since 2015 that Cipfa said they would run out within four years if spending patterns continued.

The research comes ahead of Wednesday’s Panorama, which reveals the failings of the social care system as the population gets older and more people need help with day to day living. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48280272

Surprise, surprise: the business people running Local Enterprise Partnerships are not attracting funding – from business people!

As Owl has been saying for YEARS – THESE EMPERORS HAVE NO CLOTHES!!!!! Neither do they have transparency or accountability.

It’s verging on the corrupt, definitely a conflict of interest and is certainly unethical – it means a very, very few business people, taking no risks for themselves or their businesses, divvying up OUR money for their own pet projects, with almost no oversight from the councils they have robbed of funds and no loss for them if projects fail or over-run in time or cost.

A national scandal.

“Private sector firms are not matching public sector funding for local regeneration, senior civil servants have admitted.

Two senior civil servants at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government told MPs on Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that cash from the EU, public sector and higher education are still the main sources for funding regional development projects.

The department’s permanent secretary Melanie Dawes and director general Simon Ridley said match funding for the £9.1bn Local Growth Fund is largely dependent on match funding from councils and other public bodies.

Ridley also admitted there were still challenges over transparency and the boundaries of some Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

The LEPs were set up following the abolition of regional development agencies with the idea that they would be a partnership between business and local government – with an expectation that firms would help funding regional regeneration.

Ridley told the committee that the main private sector input into the LEPs is the time and expertise of board members who work for free.

Committee member Anne Marie Morris said: “Clearly, you are having the private sector involved, so how come you haven’t got a significant financial commitment from them?”

Ridley responded: “The capacity funding we give requires match from the LEP in different ways.

“A large number of business people on the boards do it without renumeration. A lot of the capacity support around the accountable body that the local authority provides is paid for by the LEP.

“Our core expectation was to set up partnerships between the private sector and local government to think about local area development.

“Some of those funding streams are matched by private sector funding schemes.”

Committee chair Meg Hillier asked if developers and construction firms were giving over and above Section 106 contributions to enable projects.

She said: “There is a danger that without having any skin in the game, businesses can walk away and local taxpayers end up picking up the bill.”

Ridley replied: “What the LEP is seeking to do is bring forward projects in the local area that wouldn’t otherwise be coming forward.

“They are often funded by more than one funding stream from the public sector.”

The committee also challenged the pair over a claim that LEPs tended to go to the top-five local employers and as a result, other firms were being left out of key decisions.

Oxford University has become a major decision-maker for its LEP, the committee heard.

Committee member Layla Moran asked: “How do we know that everyone who is a stakeholder in this money is actually involved in the decision?”

Hillier also questioned if the LEPs were accountable, citing Oxfordshire, where meetings were not being held in public.

Dawes said the use of scores in the LEPs annual performance review were conditional for funding being released and this had impacted on responses.

She said: “The real test is how it feels for local communities and I think that’s something that’s very difficult for us to judge in central government. We are on a bit of a journey here. It’s going to take a while.”

Ridley said local authorities had a crucial role in oversight, specifically through Section 151 officers who are ideally placed to deal with complaints.

He said: “All LEPs have got their complaints procedures. We have a clearer role realisation with the accountable body and the 151 officer, so they [the public] might write to them.

“The section 151 officer does have to get all the information that goes to the LEP board. I can’t personally here guarantee that absolutely all of that is in front of every scrutiny committee.”

Dawes confirmed the department has no metrics for assessing complaints being made about the LEPs.

MPs also raised concern about territorial battles between LEPs and combined authorities.

Decisions have still yet to be made about the boundaries in nine LEPs.

Dawes told the committee: “There are legitimate reasons why these geography questions are there. We are working actively with them.

“What ministers will have to work through is whether to impose a decision centrally.

“That would be a matter of last resort.”

Businesses failing on LEP match funding, MPs told

Broke Tory county council gets its ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card … as district councils disbanded

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/05/northamptonshire-councils-be-merged

Government lacks transparency over local authority governance

“There is a complete lack of transparency over the government’s handling of local authorities with governance issues, MPs have warned.

A damning report from the Public Accounts Committee has called on the government to strengthen audit and governance of the “complex and fast-moving” environment that local authorities find themselves in.

The cross-party group of MPs warned that local authorities are now pursuing shared services and taking on commercial risk, but are simultaneously dealing with a “significant” reduction in resources.

The report noted that while some authorities have robust arrangements, others are under strain and have “audit committees that do not provide sufficient assurance, ineffective internal audit, weak arrangements for the management of risk in local authorities’ commercial investments, and inadequate oversight and scrutiny”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government’s oversight of local authority governance has until now been “reactive and ill-informed”, the report said. However, it noted that the department has now committed to improving its oversight.

MPs said that MHCLG lacks reliable information on key governance risks and relies on weak sources of information, meaning it has “no way of pinpointing at-risk councils”. They also said that the department is not focused on long-term risks to council finances.

“There is a complete lack of transparency over both the department’s informal interventions in local authorities with financial or governance problems and the results of its formal interventions,” the PAC said.

The report claimed that taxpayers have a right to know if there are problems with their councils’ finances. It cited the demise of Northamptonshire County Council, which it said was an ‘open secret’ but only for those in the sector.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said: “On the rare occasions a local authority fails, the impact on local citizens is severe. Residents facing decimated services get no comfort from being told that their council’s dire finances were “an open secret”.

“The government needs to recognise the extra pressure that squeezed budgets and increased commercial risks are having on local government and make sure it is monitoring the risks effectively so that it can be alert to the impact of changes on local government.”

MHCLG has been contacted for a response.”

Appearing before the PAC in March:

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/03/whiteman-local-government-finance-needs-be-more-transparent

CIPFA chief executive Rob Whiteman called for an improvement in local government audit.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/05/mhclg-oversight-local-authority-governance-reactive-and-ill-informed

Local Enterprise Partnerships being better held to account? Not really

No evidence so far … Although LEP control is mostly with DCC, EDDC has an LEP role. Now we have a different councillor mix at EDDC we might get some answers about our LEP’s finances …..

“The National Audit Office has reported a significant improvement in the financial transparency of England’s Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) after section 151 officers were given extra responsibility for ensuring that key data is publicly available.

But the public-spending watchdog has warned that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s unwillingness to evaluate the impact of the £9bn in Growth Deal funding channelled through LEPs since 2015 means it is unable to learn lessons on what has worked well. A total of £12 bn is committed to the fund by 2021.

Set up to drive economic growth as part of coalition government reforms introduced from 2011, there are now 38 LEPs in England, tasked with bringing together business and political leaders in a patchwork of sub-regional areas.

In its first report on their progress for three years, the NAO found a leap in the level of openness displayed by the partnerships, following concerns about financial transparency levels explored by the Ney Review, in 2017.

The NAO said that in 2016 only 13% of LEPs published financial data such as salaries on their websites, while only a third published their annual reports online.

As of February this year, 84% of LEPs were publishing their annual reports online and all gave financial information on the projects they funded.

The NAO said the improvements had followed an MHCLG and CIPFA drive to “set out stronger expectations” of the role of section 151 officers in assuring good financial governance of LEPs.

Section 151s now sign off monitoring information reported to the department.

Sign-off is also required for local assurance frameworks that confirm a LEP’s governance arrangements.

The drive came after the Ney Review’s 17 recommendations and is one of a series of initiatives addressing its findings.

Despite the improvements in transparency, the NAO report said MHCLG’s ability to make the most of opportunities presented by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund – created to replace EU economic development funding post-Brexit – would be hampered by its lack of understanding of LEPs success with the Growth Deals.

“We have previously reported that the department opted not to set quantifiable objectives for Growth Deals, including, for example, the number of jobs created,” it said.

“The absence of robust evaluation means the department and LEPs are less able to learn from what has worked well and ensure that this is reflected in the design or objectives of the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund.”

The report observed that that there was an “inherent tension” in the government’s need to develop a system of governance for a finance model that devolved funding and new responsibilities to ad-hoc business-led partnerships.

“While the assurance framework is stronger, backed up by checks on compliance, it is not proven yet whether these measures will be effective in detecting and responding to governance failures over significant sums of public money,” it said.

“The department’s accounting officer is accountable for the Local Growth Fund delivered through LEPs.

“However, the department has made no effort to evaluate the value for money of nearly £12bn in public funding, nor does it have robust plans to do so.

“The department needs a grip on how effectively these funds are used. It needs to act if it wants to have any hope of learning the lessons of what works locally for future interventions in local growth.”

Public Accounts Committee chair Meg Hillier said MHCLG had to ensure that huge sums of public funding were not wasted as it presses ahead with its devolved approach to delivering economic growth.

“It is too early to tell if the ministry’s remedial actions will get its governance up to scratch,” she said.

“Worryingly, the ministry also does not know if the funding is being used effectively to benefit local communities and businesses as intended.”

Last year the PAC called on MHCLG to implement the Ney Review recommendations and strengthen transparency and governance arrangements at LEPs following failings at the Greater Cambridgeshire Greater Peterborough LEP.

Concerns included the LEP’s relationship with local developers, and how it managed conflicts of interest. GCGP LEP went into voluntary liquidation in December 2017 after the department withheld funding from it.

This week’s NAO report notes that MHCLG “acknowledges that it cannot mitigate entirely the risk of a failure similar to the GCGP LEP”.

Boosted s151 officer role ‘significantly improves’ LEP transparency

“Low reserves aggravate Hertfordshire £90m funding gap”

County councils are at breaking point but most councils are operating on very low reserves these days:

“Hertfordshire County Council is facing a funding gap set to grow to £90m in four years’ time, with plans in place expected to account for half of the shortfall, according to a financial update prepared for senior leaders.

A report to next week’s meeting of the authority’s cabinet says costs of delivering services are expected to rise by £140m by April 2023 while income will only rise by £50m over the same period.

The county’s senior finance team is bringing forward the timetable for producing the integrated plan that informs the annual budget by “many months” so the council can “enhance its approach” to financial planning.

At £57m, price-inflation pressures are the biggest component of the £140m increase, followed by £42m anticipated for disability services related to “population growth”.

Vital service investments estimated to cost £24m and “legislative pressures” described as mainly related to the National Living Wage contribute the final £17m.

The report said that while Hertfordshire had successfully made significant savings of around £315m since 2010, it was “approaching a point where further efficiencies were increasingly difficult to deliver”.

Costs associated with the ageing population – Hertfordshire is on course to see the number of residents aged 85 and above rise by 137.5% over the next decade – were cited as an area where meeting rising demand was particularly challenging.

The report also noted that the county’s reserves were comparatively low when measured against peers. …”

http://www.room151.co.uk/resources/low-reserves-aggravate-hertfordshire-90m-funding-gap/

EDDC external auditors rapped on knuckles – again!

The suggestion when you move home is to change the locks. This lock can’t be changed so maybe an independent locksmith should examine the locks …

“KPMG has been fined £5m and “severely reprimanded” by the financial regulator for a series of failings in its audit of the Co-operative Bank at the height of the financial crisis a decade ago.

Andrew Walker, a partner at the big four accountancy firm who still works there, was fined £125,000 and also severely reprimanded. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) issued both fines for misconduct that occurred shortly after the Co-op Bank’s disastrous takeover of the Britannia building society in 2009, which ultimately led to the discovery in 2013 of a £1.5bn black hole in the bank’s accounts.

In the second penalty imposed on KPMG in just over a week, it will only pay £4m of the fine as it did not fight the penalty, as well as £500,000 for the FRC’s legal costs. Walker’s fine has been reduced, to £100,000 in the settlement.

The Co-op Bank’s acquisition of Britannia and its risky loan book a decade ago brought the Co-op Bank close to collapse. It ended its 40-year auditing relationship with KPMG in 2014 and appointed EY – another big four firm along with PwC and Deloitte.

KPMG and Walker both admitted that their conduct “fell significantly short” of auditing standards in two areas – valuations of commercial loans acquired from Britannia and the audit of valuations and liabilities under a series of loan notes purchased from Britannia.

The FRC said KPMG and Walker did not obtain enough audit evidence, failed to show “sufficient professional scepticism” and failed to tell Co-op Bank that the disclosure of the expected lives of the loan notes was not adequate.

KPMG said: “We regret that some of our audit work around specific elements of the bank’s fair value adjustments did not meet the appropriate standards. The work in question was conducted almost a decade ago and we have significantly enhanced our procedures and training around the areas in question since then.”

Barry Tootell, the former chief financial officer and chief executive of the Co-op Bank, admitted misconduct in 2016 and was excluded from membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for six years. He agreed to pay £20,000 for the FRC’s investigation.

Last week KPMG received a £6m fine and a severe reprimand from the FRC for its audit of an insurance firm, Equity Syndicate Management, more than a decade ago. KPMG’s audits of firms and institutions this year and in 2020 and 2021 will be subject to to an additional review by its internal audit quality team, who will report back to the FRC.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/08/kpmg-severely-reprimanded-for-audit-failings-at-co-op-bank?

What is our Local Enterprise Partnership up to?

Well, if you strip out the projects that are actually “stand alone” and directly-funded by its members from its latest newsletter – not very much at all – and all funded by money that used to go directly to local authorities (and not a murmer about their biggest project – Hinkley C nuclear power station:

https://mailchi.mp/heartofswlep/hotsw-lep-march-newsletter?e=9367babecc

“For England’s new councillors, the reality of life in our boroughs will hit hard”

“Optimism will be short-lived among the 1,560-plus new councillors – Liberal Democrats, independents, Greens – elected last week in the cities and shires of England, where countless councils changed hands.

These newcomers may have worthy ambitions to transform their councils. But reality kicked in on Tuesday. Entering town halls for briefings, one issue became clear: there’s barely any money left to fund even adult and children’s care, which swallows the majority of cash – let alone keep the rapidly shrinking library service running, the leisure and swimming pool afloat, parks and highways maintained.

Countless warnings from respected organisations, notably the government’s own spending watchdog, have gone unheeded by the government. Last year, the National Audit Office cautioned that council financing is unsustainable and that 10% of the larger councils could have exhausted their reserves – which prop up social care – within three years.

It gets worse. The Commons public accounts committee said recently that the government is in denial about a crisis in which councils are overspending alarmingly on social care, while some are courting “greater risks” through property speculation. …

How did we land in this mess? Look no further than George Osborne, the former chancellor, whose parting gift was a wheeze to make English councils almost self-sufficient by slashing central government grants while handing back control of most business rates. Until Osborne’s intervention, rates had been collected centrally, then redistributed relatively equitably, since 1993.

In 2016, the government initiated a “fair funding review” to work out how Osborne’s reforms might be implemented – and it’s turning out to be anything but fair. Why? Because ministers are taking little account of need and deprivation in poorer areas, with a £7.8bn funding gap emerging overall in council finances. Up to now, these areas have been compensated to take account of low tax bases because they have few expensive houses which deliver higher council tax receipts. Furthermore, business rates from run-down high streets generate a pittance in poorer areas compared with thriving city centres in London and elsewhere. No matter: for this lot, inequity is compounding denial.

Something has to give in a system where almost 60% of council spending now goes on adult and children’s social care – although, overall, social care spending is still falling. Everyone in Whitehall and town halls knows that the social care system is in freefall. A review of how it should be funded – locally, or nationally – is promised. So why introduce a new funding system for local government while its largest single service is awaiting a review?

True, some councils – sometimes smaller districts, with no social care responsibility – are plugging gaps in their finances by morphing into de facto property developers, borrowing heavily to buy shopping and office centres to deliver an annual income. In 2017-18 alone, councils spent £4bn on commercial property, in spite of NAO warnings that finances could be “strained” in the event of a downturn.

But radical action is needed. Rob Whiteman, head of the public sector accountants body Cipfa, argues that authorities should have the power to set council tax rates locally, based on up-to-date property values. His call should not go unheeded.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/07/england-councillors-cuts-funding-system-poorest-areas?

Auditor KPMG [EDDC’s Auditors] fined £6m for a botched audit

“Tainted beancounter KPMG has been fined £6million for a botched audit of a car and motorbike insurer.

It failed to spot serious problems at Equity Red Star and should not have given it a clean bill of health, regulators said.

Equity Red Star, part of a conglomerate which insures one in four British motorcycles, lost £194million in 2010 after failing to set aside enough cash to cover payouts for claims.

KPMG should have spotted the problems and raised the alarm, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) said.

The auditor’s partner Mark Taylor and former partner Anthony Hulse have been fined £100,000 each for their involvement.

And Douglas Morgan, a former director of Equity Red Star, has been banned from the accounting industry for two years.

Although the fines sound large they are dwarfed by KPMG’s UK revenues, which stood at £2.3billion in the last financial year.

Partners earned an average of £601,000 each.

It has been claimed that the penalties for bad behaviour are not big enough to make a difference to how the companies behave.

The FRC is being scrapped and replaced with a new authority following a damning review which found that it was failing to hold auditors to account properly.”

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6977471/Auditor-KPMG-fined-6m-botched-audit-car-motorbike-insurer-Equity-Red-Star.html?ito=rss-flipboard

“Auditors find ‘significant weaknesses’ in record-breaking investment deal and slam Surrey council’s £1bn ‘property roulette’ “

“Auditors have slammed a district council in Surrey which undertook the most expensive property investment ever made by a local authority after it found “significant weaknesses” in its financial processes.

KPMG delivered a damning assessment of Spelthorne Borough Council’s purchase of a BP research centre in Sunbury for £385m in September 2016, one of a number of costly property investments in the authority’s £1bn portfolio.

The auditors found that the acquisition of the site was decided by council officers without any public scrutiny, and the decision-making process was conducted via email and was “generally poor and difficult to follow.”
This meant it was “difficult to identify whether all the risks associated with such a large and significant transaction had been fully considered and mitigated,” the auditor said.

KPMG said it found little evidence the council had properly considered legal advice which said the purchase, the largest of its kind by a local authority in England, may be “disproportionate” to the rest of its spending.
Most worryingly, the auditor failed to determine whether the council had considered the financial impact if BP had decided not to renew or change the terms of its 20-year lease of the site.

The council then took four months to publish its decision, leading the auditor to conclude that “we are not satisfied that, in all respects, Spelthorne Borough Council put in place proper arrangements.”

Spelthorne has been the biggest investor in property in local government and since 2016 has borrowed £1bn from the Public Works Loan for the takeover of BP’s business park – as well as the purchases of offices in Reading, Slough and Uxbridge for £285m and a number of other investments.

The authority told the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that the “adverse value for money conclusion does not mean that the auditors are saying the actual transaction does not represent value for money but that in their opinion some aspects of decision-making processes were not conducive to maximising value for money.”

Surrey County Council’s Robert Evans said he was surprised Spelthorne had not done due diligence around the deal, and said the authority seemed to be “playing property roulette with council taxpayer’s money.”

“If the climate is good that might be okay but with Brexit around the corner everything is uncertain and this is foolhardy at best and downright dangerous at worst.”

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/auditors-find-significant-weaknesses-in-record-breaking-investment-deal-and-slam-surrey-councils-1bn-property-roulette