Secretary of State for Health scared of Claire Wright?
Category Archives: Misc
Quality and width – part 2 – do not as we do …
A reader with a forensic memory of EDDC matters, on reading Owl’s post below, points out that our ruling party is no stranger to councillors not attending meetings.
From the Exmouth Journal of October 2010. And, what do you know, it was another member of the EDDC’s Planning Committee and the East Devon Business Forum shirking his other duties! And, from the remarks of a current sitting EDDC councillor (Tom Wright – Con) at the time, it seems he feels it is OK for members of HIS party to go missing from meetings!
“At this month’s Budleigh Salterton town council meeting members responded with ‘who, who?’ whenever councillors Ray Franklin and Malcolm Florey were mentioned.
Some residents have questioned how Councillor Florey, who recently moved from East Devon to France, can adequately serve the town.
A Budleigh Salterton resident, who did not want to be named, said many in the town felt misrepresented by Cllrs Florey and Franklin.
She said: “I think it’s quite surprising how Cllr Franklin attends East Budleigh meetings and very rarely attends Budleigh Salterton meetings.
“I would also like to know how can a man who lives in France know what’s going in his ward?”
After the meeting, Budleigh town councillor John Shiel said: “We are not being represented by our ward members. One’s a Francophile and one’s Where’s Waldo.
“The other one is working his socks off for us. We’d be better off just keeping the one.”
The town council has called for a meeting with the district council to discuss its ward member concerns.
District councillor Ray Franklin said he worked hard for the town’s future investment through his role sitting on the district council’s planning committee.
He said: “They have got their view and I have got mine. Malcolm and myself are always positive.
“I hope a meeting takes place and I hope that something constructive comes out of it.”
Budleigh mayor Tom Wright said: “Since I have been mayor, Councillor Franklin’s not appeared to have shown any interest in Budleigh Salterton affairs, but that’s not to say he doesn’t do things behind the scenes for the people he represents.
“When Malcolm Florey was living in East Budleigh he was very active. He got the farmers’ market off the ground, he was behind the opening of the East Budleigh shop and very active and energetic in pursuing the youth club.
“Malcolm Florey did attend our meetings when he was here, but not now he’s living in France. I can’t remember Ray Franklin attending a meeting.”
Malcolm Florey was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.”
http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/we-are-not-being-represented-1-677070
Rich baby boomer pensioners?
East Devon pensioners are richer than Exeter pensioners!
Average tax paid by East Devon pensioners = £3,652
Average tax paid by Exeter pensioners = £2,333
Another (lack of) productivity headache for our Local Enterprise Partnership
How fortunate that ex-EDDC Leader Paul Diviani and current DCC Leader John Hart have managed to pass on responsibility for DOUBLING growth in Devon and Somerset by 2030 (not forecast for any other part of the UK economy) to our Local Enterprise Partnership – of which their councils are now very minor members!!! The parcel passed.
The tragedy being that this spurious forecast is now indelibly integrated into “unicorn under magic money tree” thinking at all levels.
“Productivity went into reverse in the first quarter of the year, raising questions over why Britain is no longer churning out the efficiency gains of the past.
Output per hour worked fell by 0.4 per cent in the three months to March compared with the previous quarter, the Office for National Statistics said.
Compared with the first quarter of last year, productivity was 0.9 per cent higher, but this was still very sluggish against the trend rate of growth of almost 2 per cent a year that was routinely chalked up before the financial crisis.
The ONS said that the productivity puzzle remained unsolved and raised possible concerns about inflationary pressures building. Earnings and other labour costs grew by 3.1 per cent over the year, up from 2.9 per cent in the previous quarter.
With wages growing faster than productivity, firms face potential profit constraints in the short run and longer-term pressure to raise prices.
Over the past ten years, productivity growth has been the weakest since modern records began and appears to be the slowest since the early 1820s, when Britain was emerging from the Napoleonic wars.
After previous downturns, productivity has initially stalled but subsequently recovered to trend rates of growth. Productivity is the key factor for a lasting rise in living standards.
Economists have proffered a number of possible explanations for the productivity freeze, including the relatively low level of business capital investment and the reluctance of banks to lend since the crisis.
Others believe the productivity number is understated because of the difficulty of measuring intangible output benefits from the digital economy.
In the ten years since the last productivity peak in the fourth quarter of 2007, output per hour worked is only 1.5 per cent higher. It would have been 20 per cent higher by now if pre-crisis trends had continued.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said the latest figures were “disappointing but not surprising” given the strong job creation numbers in the quarter and weak economic growth.
Other analysts said that wintry weather in the first quarter would have hit productivity levels in some industries.
The ONS next week reveals the first of its estimates for monthly GDP as well as a rolling three-month figure. Previously it had stuck to quarterly numbers. Britain will be the first advanced economy to try to estimate total national output every month.
One drawback, however, is that it will delay publication of the traditional calendar quarterly number. The Bank of England will not have the benefit of the full second-quarter GDP number when it decides whether to raise base rate early next month.”
Source: http://www.thetimes.co.uk
2 mins read
Patrick Hosking, Financial Editor
July 7 2018, 12:01am, The Times
EDDC Planning: One rule for the businesses, one rule for residents?
How very differently EDDC planners seem to have treated an Ottery St Mary resident with a basic and simple planning question, demanding £40 to start a conversation, compared to an out of Devon business person who may be seen as saving their hide over the Exmouth Seafront debacle!
The Sidmouth Herald reports how EDDC planners tried to get £40 out of Ottery local Adrian Forster who just wanted to know if he needed to go through building regulations to renew his roof.
He is apparently not the first to be charged for the privilege of speaking to a planner. (Tip – ask a decent builder not EDDC or, if you can wait for an answer, put in a Freedom of Information request (FOI)!).
Contrast this with how a planning inquiry and subsequent requests for information were dealt with concerning the “Exmouth Eye” business.
In a January 2018 an FOI request was made to EDDC about a planning inquiry submitted by EDDC staff member Alison Hayward (to her planning colleagues) concerning some possible irregularities in the application form for this business.
Investigation showed that the form categorically stated that a named planner had given pre-planning assistance or prior advice (17/2944/FUL). EDDC was asked by FOI for information about that advice. EDDC stated that the pre-application advice was purely verbal advice given to the agent about what needed to be submitted with the application and was not recorded in any format, so presumably the advice was given free of charge and no receipt was issued for any payment.
A business appears to get free advice, a resident has to pay.
By amazing coincidence, WhatdoTheyKnow.com published a response into two further Exmouth Ferris Wheel FOI enquiries (https://bit.ly/2tCGwX4) The answers suggest that EDDC was somewhat economical with the truth about fees being charged – originally stating that fees charged by EDDC for the wheel to take up a great chunk of Exmouth Seafront were exempt from disclosure.
When pressed, however, they did say: “We are charging £151.80 per operational day and no charge on non-operational days”. Earlier, they suggested free non-operational days were not unique to this Ferris Wheel operator and gave a link to their charging regime.
It seems the operator may be in a unique pisition – as their scheme and rates actually appear to make no mention of free days.
The denial of special treatment for their Ferris Wheel friends looks rather hollow now and the ducking, diving and avoiding providing proper answers to FOI’s might be of interest to the Information Commissioner yet again?
A lesson from pre-application planning advice on how to by-pass local objections, Historic England and the EDDC Development Management Committee
There is a very contentious planning application, an amended version of a second application, on a site in the heart of one of our historic villages. It is in a conservation area, surrounded by listed buildings where the village has an adopted neighbourhood plan. The Grade 1 listed church overlooks the site.
obj.pdf_DocNo=3035887&PDF=true&content=obj 2
The Parish Council oppose this application because the application does not conform to the aspirations and policies within the Neighbourhood Plan. The main priority of parishioners is the preservation of the overall character of the built heritage. The Neighbourhood Plan requires new buildings should “…..respect the local character” and preferably natural traditional building materials and methods should be used. (The proposed two dwellings are contemporary with flat sedum roofs).
Historic England (watchdog of our historic environment) said, in Feb 2018, of the first application:
“… the site in question, sits to the west and is made up of two linear fields that run parallel to the road behind the dwellings. Due to their size and close association to the built environment, it is believed these may have been paddocks for livestock and were potentially connected to the pub.
In recent years, development has occurred to the east in the form of modern bungalows and housing estates. However, these fields act as an indicator of the former rural landscape that characterised the setting of [the village].
A pre-application enquiry has been undertaken with the council, who consider that some form of development may be acceptable on the site. We would highlight the importance of the site as an extant aspect of the former rural setting of the conservation area as well as the contribution it makes in terms of appreciating the former uses of the land and how the development interacted with its rural setting. Therefore, its development would result in some erosion of that quality, which contributes to the significance of the conservation area.”
In spite of this cautionary advice it appears from pre-application correspondence published on EDDC web site that EDDC planners want to facilitate development by ignoring all this, squaring the Councillors and by-passing the DMC.
Applicant’s agent to planning officer e-mail (March 2018):
“We talked about how the application would proceed from this point on, and [X- planning officer] advised that he felt that the team would be supportive of the application, though [sic] that the town council would object as they did before. This would mean that the application would need to go the Chairman’s briefing for delegated approval.
“The process works that when a parish or town council differ in opinion to that of a planning team (planning recommendation report for approval) then the chairman of the planning committee (who meets once a week) would make the decision if the planning report should be followed, and delegated approval is granted, or if it should go to committee [sic].
“The district councillor (Cllr [Y] plus 2 others) will also have a say, though they did not object last time to the two houses, and I [architectural agent for applicant] will be meeting with the Cllr this time to ensure that he understands the application, and the reason for the second application as the district Cllr is allowed to sit in and vote on the delegated chairman’s briefing.”
Historic England continue their concern (May 2018):
“We maintain reservations in respect of the proposal. The orientation of the buildings within the site, their scale and associated ground works to address this issue of height, results in a significant intervention that does not respond to the character and appearance of the conservation area, through the scale and massing of the proposal and its orientation within the plot……..”
And Historic England’s final comment is:
ou could add at the end the final Historic England recommendation:
Recommendation
Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice.
Chances of that happening? Owl isn’t taking any bets!
Say NO to Sidford Business Park
Health
No news day…
For some reason there are no topical news items for Owl today – back tomorrow!
“Pothole ‘epidemic’ costs £1m a month in motoring claims, says AA”
The headline says it all. We are becoming (have become?) more of a third world country every day:
“Theresa May warned plans to make ‘silver-strivers’ who work in their retirement pay NI are ‘toxic’ “
Somewhat controversial when a large proportion of East Devon’ s voters fall into this category:
Devon may soon be the only non-unitised county in this part of the South West – but for how long?
So, Somerset is moving towards a unitary authority (see below). Inevitable really, isn’t it.
The new HQ for the already combined Taunton Deane and West Somerset authority is ten minutes walk from Somerset County Hall. Taunton Deane and West Somerset are intending to spend £11 million altering their building to accommodate their merger requirements – when Somerset County Hall has a lot of spare capacity.
Meanwhile EDDC proceeds apace with Blackdown House, their new HQ in Honiton, at a minimum cost of £10m – and an ultimate cost of probably MUCH more than that – without at any factoring into their calculations of the likelihood of a unitary Devon proposal similarly coming forward with the same arguments for big savings.
EDDC’s consultants apparently estimated the open market value of Blackdown House on completion of the building to be £3 million. Given the current economic situation, even that might be optimistic.
So a potential BIG loss looming – with the local taxpayer picking up the bills? And that’s if HQ builder Interserve s
If Somerset goes unitary, that will be Somerset, Cornwall and Wiltshire all unitary and Dorset double unitary. Devon will be an anachronistic exception.
Has Devon County Council leader John Hart anything to tell us?
And Owl bets soon-to-be-ex-Leader Paul Diviani may be very pleased with the timing of his exit!
Let’s do the Tory bump and grind again … or maybe not
Javid’s first mistake within 24 hours of his new job:
“Power stance? They look as though they’ve wet themselves.
Mary Hutchison
West Kilbride, Ayrshire”
Guardian letters
Would you take business advice for your small business from our Local Enterprise Council/Serco?
The Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership is obsessed with growth, mostly because it has promised an over abundance of it.
So, it is interesting to receive an email from their “Growth Hub” to see what it promises:
https://www.heartofswgrowthhub.co.uk/
Well that’s nice – they offer advice. Always helpful, though Owl guesses it depends where the advice comes from.
Is it from those “business leaders” on the Board of the LEP? Or one of the board member councillors (though many of those seem to have had either little business experience, none at all, or so long ago that computers hadn’t bedn invented).
No, scroll down to the bottom of the email and you get:
Our mailing address is:
Serco Employment, Skills and Enterprise
Envoy House
61 Longbridge Road
Plymouth, Devon PL6 8LU
United Kingdom
A company which offers outsourcing services all over the world, particularly in the UK.
So what does Wikipedia have to say about Serco?
“The 2017 Paradise Papers revealed that Appleby carried out a risk assessment of Serco and noted it had a “history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging” and had faced allegations of fraud and cover-ups.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco
and an article in The Guardian saying that, in Australia, outsourcing with Serco is “an accident waiting to happen”:
and a Telegraph Business article headed:
“Serco recovery still on ‘long and winding’ road, says boss Soames”
“The boss of troubled outsourcer Serco has warned that its road to recovery will be “long and winding” as its strategy to concentrate on providing services to governments means it is exposed to political changes.
Rupert Soames said the business’s five-year plan remained on track, after its shares were hit when the company today announced that last year its revenues fell by 13pc to just over £3bn … .
One law for the rich, one law for the NHS
Expensive gas or cheap nurses?
Blackhill Quarry: EDDC’s left hand (Planning Dept) and right hand (its Economic Development Manager) at war over Clinton Devon site
The initial response by EDDC to the planning application to extend the industrial site at Blackhill Quarry was negative:
However, subsequently EDDC changed its collective mind, as it so often does, and Dr Robert Murray – EDDC’s new Economic Development Manager (replacement for the somewhat controversial Nigel Harrison) now supports Clinton Devon Estate’s plans to extend industrial use of the site:
17.3022.MOUT Economic Development Response
However, each of Dr Murray’s points can (and should be) challenged as a correspondent details below:
“Further response to 17/3022/MOUT Blackhill Quarry
A response from the Economic Development Manager of East Devon District Council Dr Robert Murray gives support for the Blackhill Engineering proposed development within the AONB of Woodbury Common. (Planning Application 17/3022/MOUT)
However, the report includes many statements which are incorrect, and misleading.
Within the introduction summery Dr Murray states:
“The outline application seeks to accommodate (entirely within the industrial site) and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of an established and growing local business.”
This statement is not correct as the area which the expansion area is proposed to be built is outside the already approved engineering area (7/B/80/0620/22 dated 16/09/1980) and relates to land used for the processing of gravel and sand that had temporary planning rights from Devon County Council (the mineral Authority) with a clause that the area is required to be returned to the natural landscape of the heathland once processing and extraction has been completed.
This is also contrary to the view of Mr Gavin Spiller Principal Planning Officer for Western Planning Team at EDDC who wrote in Oct 2017 to Clinton Devon Estates regarding the proposed business units at Blackhill Quarry:
“In this instance, the Local Planning Authority recognise the previously developed nature of the site, however, in the glossary of Teams section of the Local Plan (which echoes those contained in the National Planning Policy Framework) previously developed land specifically excludes land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. Accordingly, the land would be greenfield”
A further statement Dr Murray makes in the following paragraph:
“Recently acquired by the SC group, Blackhill Engineering is a growing local business of almost 70 rears.”
Again, this statement is misleading and incorrect. Blackhill Engineering units where built following the granting of planning permission in 1980 for the regional workshop for the then tenant of the quarry for ECC (English China Clay). It was only following a change in tenants to AI (Aggregate Industries) in 1995 that the restriction for use for the quarry tenants’ own workshop was removed and full commercial use was permitted unrelated to the quarry.
Therefore, the commercial use at Blackhill Quarry could only have started in 1995 and therefore 23 years in operation, far less than the 70 years quoted.
Within the same paragraph Dr Murray states:
“The scheme requires no transport access modifications or landscape change”
Again, this is incorrect. The site in question has permitted development for Mineral extraction and processing only. Therefore, the access and landscaping is not as described as hardstanding and approved access, but temporary access and hardstanding which is required to be returned to the heathland area of Woodbury Common.
Dr Murrays Further comment in the Consultee Representations
“…. A change of use to B” industrial use is unlikely to have an impact on the qualifying features of the European designated site, or CWS (County Wildlife Site)”
The clear designation of this area is not Industrial land as Dr Murray implies but a part of Woodbury Common that until 2017 had a restricted permission to extract and process minerals. The total area around the quarry is designated as a SSSI (Special Site of Scientific Interest) and like other areas of the common which had temporary military or mineral uses have been returned to heathland, and included in the SSSI designation. Therefore, once the quarry and processing area has been re-landscaped would most likely to be included within the SSSI designation like these other areas within the pebblebed heaths.
Dr Murray then misrepresents a letter from Devon County Council by stating that they do not object.
Devon County Council are not a consultee on this EDDC Application, but where the agreed Authority for the previous Minerals extraction and therefore wrote explaining that the land proposed for Industrial development is on land agreed by DCC with an enforceable legal agreement to return this area back to the common.
Their final Paragraph explains their position:
“To clarify, Devon County Council as Mineral Planning Authority would not wish to raise any objection to the proposal so long as adequate complementary habitat to replace the lost heathland is provided elsewhere and that this is secured by condition or legal agreement. In such a scenario it would not then be reasonable for the County Council to seek to enforce the provisions of the legal agreement insofar as they relate to this small parcel of land”
Therefore, their conclusion is if the Applicant provides another suitable area as replacement complementary habitat they will not enforce the legal agreement. Unfortunately, the applicant has not provided evidence that they will provide any habitat replacement.
Dr Murray states on page 2 states:
“The submitted Statement on the Business Case and Economic Needs (Bell Cornwall Dec 2017) goes some way to highlighting the economic benefits of the proposed scheme, but falls short of a full economic impact assessment….
…. It fails to provide a fuller picture of the salient wider economic benefits which would follow from the proposed scheme”
Therefore, as the developer and their agents have not provided a full economic impact assessment that is generally required in these cases why is this application being considered until such a time that a full assessment has been made?
Dr Murray states on page 5 states:
“Recent constraints targeted at both Greendale and Hill Barton employment locations further reduce our ability to accommodate such valuable commercial development opportunities”
It is assumed that he is referring to the EDDC Villages plan that has a proposal to encircle both these large business parks with an “employment boundary”. This was agreed within the East Devon Local plan (approved only in 2016) that further growth at these 2 sites should not be further expanded into the countryside. This was because both are in unsustainable locations and distant from residential housing and public transport requiring employees to use their private cars which is against the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework)
Both the Business Parks have never been in the local authority’s strategic policy for employment zones and grown as “exceptions” to the Local Plan Policies over the last 30 years.
The location of Blackhill Engineering existing site and the proposed extension are in similar unsustainable locations as Greendale and Hill Barton and require workers to commute in their own vehicles along unsuitable roads.
The Application for an extension to Blackhill Quarry would be against the NPPF and our local plan creating a third large industrial area within the countryside.
Further on Page 5 Dr Murray states:
“There is a clearly identified need for the subject business to expand with such positive recent trading (567% increase in annual turnover) taking their existing facility beyond capacity. The SC Group would not be seeking to take this substantial investment forward if they were uncertain of their ability to secure new employees….
Again, the above statement seems to conflict with the letter from Gavin Spiller following “pre-application advice in October 2017.
The letter states
“Pre-application advice is sought for the proposed erection of an additional industrial building to support the existing business being operated from the site together with the erection of 5 additional industrial use by other businesses”
The landowners Clinton Devon Estates asked for Pre-planning advice in Oct 2017 to build one unit for Blackhill Engineering and 5 additional buildings for “other businesses” but by Dec 2017 just 2 months later, a justification was submitted with the outline planning application that all the buildings where required for Blackhill Engineering.
This seems most odd that the advice given by the EDDC Planners in Oct 2017 was not to support the 5 speculative buildings but 8 weeks later there was a business justification to expand the whole area for Blackhill Engineering!
The final paragraph from Gavin Spillers letter regarding pre-application advice:
“…… it is considered that an application for the proposal to which the pre-application enquiry relates would not comply with the provisions Strategy7 and Policy E5 of the EDLP. However, should appropriate justification be submitted to support expansion of the existing business and additional building for their use may be able to be supported as a departure from policy given the economic benefits of retaining an existing employer.
The five speculative industrial buildings would not receive officer support”
Dr Murrays final comment:
“The economic case in favour of this proposed development on their existing site is particularly compelling. It is strongly recommended to our Planning Colleagues for approval”
It therefore can be seen that there is a conflict between the Economic Development Manager and the Planning Team at the Local Authority.
However, as Dr Murrays document shows the economic case presented has inaccuracies and should not form part of the evidence for a justification to:
• Ignore the condition regarding the restoration and aftercare scheme for planning application 10/0473/CM.
• Ignore Strategy 7 Development in the Countryside
• Ignore Policy E5 Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas
• Ignore Policy D1 Design and Local Distinctiveness
• Ignore Policy D3 Trees and Development Sites
• Ignore EN16 Contaminated Land
• Ignore Policy TC7 Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access
Until there is sound correct and true “Economic Impact Assessment” and adequate complementary habitat to replace the lost heathland is proposed and agreed by the landowner and the local authority this application should not be considered.
And Swire gets mentioned here, too!
This article appeared on 20 March 2018 on a website called “Sarawak Report” which describes itself as a sister organisation of Radio Free Sarawak. Radio Free Sarawak was created by investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle-Brown in 2010 and has won the IPI International Press Institue’s Free Media Pioneers Award 2013 and the Communication for Social Change Award 2014 for its “impact on the political debate” in Malaysia. It is also recognised by the Index on Censorship for being a “champion against censorship”. It reports that it has been at the forefront of exposing corruption about how”billions of dollars were borrowed then chanelled out of Malaysia under the instructions of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak”. It goes on to say that the Malaysian Government unsuccessfully requested INTERPOL to place its editors on to its Red Notice list, normally reserved for terror suspects, as reported by Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders. INTERPOL wrote to its 190-member national police forces not to use Interpol’s channels in this matter and also requested to remove any data from their national databases.
“EXPOSE! – Petronas Was Pitched As A Front For A BN Covert Campaign By Cambridge Analytica/SCL For The Sarawak Election
20 March 2018
“The controversial UK campaign company was behind a covert contract designed to influence unwitting Sarawak voters into supporting BN, using secret ‘scientific’ and ‘behavioural’ methods that claimed to “innoculate” target communities against ideas promoted by the opposition, such as a higher petroleum royalty for the state……
… In July 2014, just before the issue of SCL’s Petronas pitch, Lord Marland resigned as then Prime Minister David Cameron’s Trade Envoy and set up a limited company confusingly named the Commonwealth Investment and Enterprise Council. Although the name might imply some kind of official Commonwealth status, it is in fact merely a small business entity.
Marland’s Wikipeida entry states he was then ‘made Chairman’ of the Council, whereas in fact, as the Director and 50% shareholder of the £2.00 company, he plainly accorded himself the title of Chairman.
The website of the Commonwealth Investment and Enterprise Council (CWIEC) is surprisingly uninformative about its limited company status in the ‘About Us’ section, preferring to concentrate on the apparent relationship with the Commonwealth Secretariat, which has provided the company with ‘small’ office space at its headquarters in Malborough House.
Indeed, the CWIEC appears to have acquired what it describes as “a mandate” to organise trade events for the Commonwealth Secretariat and says it is a not for profit company dedicated to boosting trade and enterprise within the Commonwealth. Notably, it was the CWIEC that organsied the face-saving Britain/Malaysia trade event for Najib at Malborough House in June 2016, shortly after the Department of Justice published its court filing over 1MDB that showed a billion dollars of borrowed cash had gone from the fund into Najib’s bank accounts.
That trade conference took place just two days after Cameron’s ‘Anti-Corruption Conference’ in London, which was in exactly the same location at Malborough House.
Questioned by Channel 4 News outside the controversial event, Lord Marland implied there could be no proof that Najib had taken the money, until his own appointed Attorney General launched a prosecution (thus ignoring the fact that Najib had just fired the previous AG, who had attempted to do just that).
Although the conference was described as non-official by UK government spokesmen, who claimed no ministers would attend, in the event Hugo Swire, then a Foreign Office Minister, none the less attended it. Swire at the time told the Wall Street Journal “I am not setting myself up as a judge and jury” on Najib, thus registering an apparent Government line towards the 1MDB affair.
Political Clout
The newly appointed Director of the ‘Commonwealth Investment and Enterprise Council’ is none other than Hugo Swire MP, who took up the job after losing Foreign Office post in a government re-shuffle in late 2016. Swire has now been registered as a controlling individual of this limited company as of July 27th last year. The good relationship with the pseudo-official company has therefore provided valuable political support for Najib in the UK.
Sarawak Report therefore questions the apparent conflict between Marland’s not for profit activities, organising trade links with Commonwealth Countries and high profile events attended by government leaders, and the various secretive SCL election campaigns being conducted to keep those leaders in power like Malaysia.”
Education spending on the few not the many
Pupils forced to learn in cramped and crumbling schools, says survey
