Category Archives: Post-Brexit Adjustments

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Dec 2016

Posted under

Budleigh Salterton, Economy, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Budleigh Salterton France-UK cable in doubt, so why the compulsory purchase notices?

“Two European Union-backed projects to export French electricity to Britain via subsea power cables have been thrown into doubt after officials in France raised concerns about the impact of Brexit on their profitability.

The projects to build 1,000 megawatt and 1,400 megawatt interconnectors running beneath the English Channel between Normandy to Hampshire and Devon [Budleigh Salterton] are a key plank of UK plans to ensure reliable future electricity supplies.

Once built, together they will supply Britain with the equivalent of the output of two Sizewell B nuclear power stations, enough to meet the needs of 2.5 million homes. The projects will cost more than £1 billion to build, for which they have received €13 million of EU funding. The links could also be used to export UK electricity to France.

However, Clive Moffatt, an energy consultant, said that there was “definite uncertainty” over how Brexit would affect the cost of importing or exporting electricity. He said that developers were increasingly concerned about possible trade restrictions that might make it “commercially unviable” to build the links. “These issues have not been resolved,” he said. “It’s going to take a while.”

A final decision was due by the end of December, with contracts awarded for the first 240km link to Fareham near Portsmouth, known as IFA2, by its developers, National Grid and RTE, the French electric grid operator. But National Grid has confirmed that a final decision on the £590 million scheme has been delayed until next year, after French officials expressed concern about the implications of Brexit for the terms of the project.

CRE, the French energy market regulator, said this month that it was launching a consultation on legal issues related to Brexit. “The approval of the IFA2 project will be the subject of a specific decision in January 2017,” CRE said.

National Grid said the IFA2 project was still expected to proceed, but it acknowledged that the French regulator had asked for more time to reach a decision.

“The UK vote to leave the EU in June 2016 happened after the incentive regulation application that RTE made for IFA2 and so it is understandable and reasonable that CRE, given its responsibilities, would now consult stakeholders on how Brexit could impact the regulatory incentives for the project in the coming years.” The IFA2 interconnector was due to enter operation by 2020.”

Meanwhile, a 220km scheme, FAB Link, will link France with Budleigh Salterton in east Devon via the Channel island of Alderney. It is due to enter service by 2022.

James Dickson, project director for FAB Link at Transmission Investment, the scheme’s UK developer, expressed confidence that the scheme would continue, but he acknowledged that Brexit had created an “unprecedented situation with all sorts of uncertainties”.

He said that the key question was whether or not the UK would remain inside the EU common energy market and, if so, what new terms would be introduced governing the cross-border trade in electricity. These will determine the profitability of the investment.

Mr Moffatt said that the British government had not yet reached a final decision.

Officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have identified the lack of legal clarity around interconnectors as one of their biggest challenges and the matter has been raised in meetings with ministers, The Times understands.

Mr Dickson played down the concerns, saying: “We expect there to be little impact. It’s business as usual.”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

what happens when you tell truth to power in these post-truth times

“A consultancy firm has apologised to the government for the “disruption” caused by a leaked memo that suggested ministers had no plan for Brexit.

Deloitte said it regretted the publication, adding it had proposed a plan “to put this matter behind us”.

The Times reported this included an agreement not to bid for government contracts for six months.

Downing Street dismissed the memo when it was published last month, saying it had been unsolicited. The document claimed “well over 500 projects” were being undertaken by Whitehall departments to implement Brexit, creating the need for up to 30,000 extra civil servants, and highlighted “divisions” within government over the strategy.

Its publication in The Times generated a backlash from No 10, which said it “wholeheartedly” rejected the comments it contained, and Deloitte played down the memo’s significance. Five weeks on, the company has said: “Deloitte regrets the publication of the two-page note, and has apologised for the unintended disruption it caused government.

“The note was for internal audiences and was not a Deloitte point of view. We have put forward a plan for working with central government to put this matter behind us.”

Downing Street did not dispute The Times’ report that the agreement involved Deloitte not bidding for government contracts for six months, but the the company declined to comment on any withdrawal from such bids.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390147

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Neil Parish, NHS (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments

Brexit money could go to landowners rather than NHS

Wonder why pro-Remain farmer Neil Parish supported Andrea Leadsom (pro- Brexit, now Minister of Agriculture) for PM?

“Prominent Brexit campaigners and big landowners could pocket millions in farm subsidies if Tory minister Andrea Leadsom gets her way, an investigation has found.

The Vote Leave campaign said the gross amount of money we sent to the EU, £350 million a week, could go to the NHS. But they also quietly made a series of other promises about spending that money, leaving far less for the NHS.

A Greenpeace investigation has found that prominent Brexiter said she would guaranteed the controversial single farm payment to continue at current levels, if she were elected leader. She clearly didn’t win, but she is now the new environment secretary, and in a position to guarantee millions of pounds in farm subsidies post-Brexit.

This means that supporters and donors of Vote Leave, including Lord Bamford and Sir James Dyson, could get large taxpayer-funded subsidies. Others currently benefitting from the scheme include farming minister George Eustice and vice-president of Conservatives for Britain, Viscount Ridley. Iain Duncan Smith does not benefit directly but resides on the grounds of Swanbourne Estate, owned by his parents-in-law, who received £134,309 in farm subsidies last year.

The subsidy, which forms part of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), has been heavily criticised in the past for transferring wealth from the general public to rich landowners, including the aristocracy and billionaires from Denmark and Dubai.

The EU subsidies were meant to support family farming across the UK, but the money largely goes to large landowners. Many of them are Tory donors. Last year £2.3 billion was doled out as part of these payments. Prominent Brexit campaigners received over £4 million in EU farm subsidies in 2015, Greenpeace found.

That would mean more broken promises on the NHS – what a surprise.”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/08/leading-brexiteers-could-keep-millions-in-farm-subsidies-under-tory-pledge-instead-of-nhs/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

6 Comments

“Opposing Brexit should be made an act of ‘treason’ punishable by life in prison, Tory councillor says in petition”

“Opposing Brexit should be made an act of “treason” and be punishable by life in prison, a Conservative councillor has suggested in a petition to Parliament.

Guildford councillor Christian Holliday’s petition, on the House of Commons website, calls for an amendment to the Treason Felony Act to make supporting UK membership of the European Union a crime.

He has since been suspended by the leader of Guildford Borough Council.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/opposing-brexit-should-be-made-an-act-of-treason-punishable-by-l/

Owl has just two questions:

How the heck did he become LEADER? Is the gene pool so bereft of talent in a place as big as Guildford, people such as him rise to the top?

and

If it can happen in Guildford – in how many other places is it happening and being covered up by Whips? Hhhmmm!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Oct 2016

Posted under

NHS (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

2 Comments

“No extra money for NHS, Theresa May tells health chief”

“Theresa May has told the head of the NHS that it will get no extra money despite rapidly escalating problems that led to warnings this week that hospitals are close to breaking point.

The prime minister dashed any hopes of a cash boost in next month’s autumn statement when she met Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, senior NHS sources have told the Guardian. Instead she told him last month that the NHS should urgently focus on making efficiencies to fill the £22bn hole in its finances and not publicly seek more than the “£10bn extra” that ministers insist they have already pledged to provide during this parliament.

She told him the NHS could learn from the painful cuts to the Home Office and Ministry of Defence budgets that she and Philip Hammond, the chancellor, had overseen when they were in charge of those departments, according to senior figures in the NHS who were given an account of the discussion.

Senior Whitehall sources have confirmed that Hammond’s statement on 23 November will contain no new money for the NHS, despite increasingly vocal pleas from key NHS organisations and the public’s expectation of extra health spending if Britain voted to leave the EU.

NHS Providers, which represents 238 NHS trusts, last week accused ministers of perpetuating “a bit of a fantasy world” on how well the NHS is doing after the worst-ever performance figures for key waiting time targets for A&E care, planned hospital operations and cancer treatments led to warnings that it was starting to buckle under the strain of unprecedented demand.

Health experts warned that the NHS would have to ration treatment, shut hospital units and cut staff if it gets no extra money soon.

Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust health thinktank, said: “If the government has firmly decided not to revisit NHS funding, this underlines that the health service faces four very difficult years. In particular, balancing the books in 2018 and 2019 when funding will flatline looks all but impossible with the current level of services.

“If more money from tax or borrowing is ruled out, the only choices left may be even less attractive, including reducing access and services, closures and reductions in staff,” he said.

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, and Jim Mackey, the chief executive of the health service’s financial regulator, NHS Improvement, also attended the 8 September meeting, which was Stevens’ and Mackey’s first encounter with the prime minister.

“No 10’s message at the meeting was quite blunt and stark, that there will be no more money. Theresa May and Philip Hammond say that they presided over big efficiency programmes at the Home Office and MoD and didn’t whinge about it. Their view is that the NHS is already doing very well, but that’s head in the sand stuff,” said one NHS insider who was among those briefed on the meeting.

NHS leaders privately fear that May’s remarks indicate that she will be much tougher on the service’s pleas for more cash than David Cameron and does not appear to appreciate the extent of its deepening problems. She is said to be sympathetic to the view of many senior Treasury officials that, as one NHS source put it, “always giving the NHS more money is throwing good money after bad, like pouring water on to sand”.

May’s stance raises questions over the future of Stevens, who is preparing to give evidence on the NHS’s finances to the Commons health select committee on Tuesday. The NHS boss, who had a close relationship with Cameron and George Osborne, has recently irritated No 10 by publicly questioning the accuracy of the government’s claim – which May repeated at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday – that the NHS will receive £10bn extra by 2020.

He told the public accounts committee last month: “The government would record it as £10bn. The health committee recorded it a little differently. There is an apples and pears issue there.”

Stevens has welcomed the fact that the £8bn boost Osborne pledged during last year’s general election campaign was “frontloaded” to give the NHS £3.8bn more this year, a rise of 1.7%, as he had requested. But he highlighted that the service had not got the sums it needed for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. On current plans, it is due to receive increases of just 0.6%, 0.2% and 0.1% respectively, even though demand for core NHS services such as A&E care is rising at 3% or 4% a year.

Chris Ham, chief executive of The King’s Fund thinktank, said that any policy of providing no more money was unwise, “simply not credible” and would threaten standards of NHS care. “If these accounts are true, then it is clear that Downing Street does not yet fully understand the impact on patients of the huge pressures facing the NHS.

“The view from the top of government appears to be that the NHS has been given the extra money it asked for and should deliver what is expected of it. But this misses the point that demand for services is rising rapidly and the NHS is managing with the lowest funding increases in its history,” he said.

A Downing Street spokesman said he could not comment on what May, Stevens and Mackey had discussed because it had been a private meeting .”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/14/no-extra-money-for-nhs-theresa-may-tells-health-chief

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Consultation, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Independent Councillors, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Spin, Transparency

Take control …

“Take control” are two of the most potent words in our language that have come to mean just one thing in the weeks since the Brexit vote.

But the desire for more control over our lives is not the exclusive preserve of Leave voters – and nor can it or should it be confined to the issue of immigration.

Our polling shows that people from all backgrounds and with every kind of belief now feel they have lost control over what matters most to them, whether it is the price of a home, the pace of technological change or the poisoning of our planet.

Far from being supporters of the status quo, a clear majority of remain supporters specifically identify big business and corporate elites as having “too much power over their lives”.

By an even bigger margin of 62%, those who voted remain in the referendum say that only a few people in power take all the big decisions, adding that there is not much the average citizen can do about it.

Those decisions now seem further out of reach than ever for millions of people after the party conference season. The government has confirmed its determination to pursue a hard Brexit, even though that risks making matters worse for people who already feel left behind in this economy.

At the same time, many people see opposition parties as being in disarray and deeply divided, leaving some to despair at the prospects for progressive politics ever providing answers, let alone getting the chance to put them into practice.

A storm in our economy and our democracy that has been gathering for decades is now firmly upon us. A torrent of wealth of power is washing away even the fragile footholds people had established in the economy. Many more now face losing control all together in the face of global, technological and climate change.

Yet, even in the midst of all this upheaval, a surge of energy is being generated that can crack open new possibilities for people to take more control right now – not at some distant point in the future.

The New Economics Foundation seeks to give people the tools to take control and change their lives for the better
Today, the New Economics Foundation is setting out ways to shift debate beyond secret negotiations over Brexit in the capitals of Europe, seemingly endless party infighting in Westminster’s opposition, or literal fights in Brussels over whose turn it is next to lead Ukip.

Instead, we are setting out an agenda for people to take control themselves, without having to wait for government to do it for – or to – them.

Our agenda for people draws on real experiences, ranging from those in seaside communities who feel abandoned by the political elite, taxi drivers in London trying to make a living in an Uber-ised economy, small businesses starved of finance, consumers overcharged for energy, and young families hoping for their first home or worried about the cost of childcare.

It seeks to give all of them the tools they need to take control and change their lives for the better. Coastal communities will find ways to revive a clean marine economy which brings together people who care about the environment with those who care about getting decent jobs. We are helping to develop a new taxi app owned and controlled by drivers themselves, from London to Leeds, to give them the chance to share in the vast new digital value being created around us.

The foundation is also drawing up plans to turn the scandal-torn RBS into 130 stakeholder banks that serve local firms rather than expecting them to serve it. We have teamed up with the Switched On London campaign to help communities generate renewable and affordable energy that gives them a real stake in a low-carbon future.

Furthermore, in a project with Citizens UK, we are creating the first maps of vacant public land available for the houses that need to get built. And we are helping parents expand the number of childcare co-operatives so they can not only afford a service fundamental to modern working lives, but also exercise more control over it.

This is not an agenda merely for clicktivists who think change happens on a smartphone screen on the way to a rally. We recognise that the tools people need to take control must be fashioned in partnership with institutions wielding real power, ranging from devolved government, city mayors and forward-looking businesses to trade union and community-led campaigns across the country.

But this is the first time a major thinktank has set itself a bigger ambition than merely influencing ministers or future legislation, or getting included in a political party’s manifesto.

The New Economics Foundation will focus on helping people and communities take control by engaging with new partners – from the Mayor of London and Google DeepMind to the GMB and Citizens UK – to explore new possibilities for change right now.

We are rooted outside the traditional boundaries of politics. We care most about people’s everyday experience. And we will work with communities of all kinds to give them the tools they need to build a better future because there has never been a more urgent need for a new economy than right now.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/politicians-housing-employment-childcare-control-new-economics-foundation

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Sovereignty

Pro-Leave MP calls own government “fundamentally undemocratic, unconstitutional and cutting across the rights and privileges of the legislature”.

A pro-leave Tory MP has applied for an urgent debate on Brexit in an attempt to prevent the government from negotiating the terms for leaving the EU without consulting parliament.

Stephen Phillips, who voted to leave in the referendum, said the government appeared intent on negotiating “without any regard to the House of Commons” in a way that was “fundamentally undemocratic, unconstitutional and cuts across the rights and privileges of the legislature”.

Phillips said: “I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government that apparently wishes to ignore the views of the house on the most important issue facing the nation.”

Phillips said he voted to leave for reasons of restoring sovereignty but was not a supporter of the official leave campaign.

The barrister, a member of the public accounts committee, said it was apparent after the Conservative party conference that the government had no intention of consulting parliament about its negotiating aims, and this was “simply not an acceptable way for the executive to proceed”.

He said Theresa May’s government had “no authority or mandate to adopt a negotiating position without reference to the wishes of the house and those of the British people expressed through their elected representatives”.

He has written to the Speaker, John Bercow, to request the urgent debate for this week, which will be ruled on later on Monday.

Asked about Phillips’s comments, the prime minister’s spokesman said it was absolutely necessary for MPs to scrutinise the process of leaving the EU but that MPs should not be given a vote on the package negotiated.

He said: “Parliament is of course going to debate and scrutinise that process as it goes on. That is absolutely necessary and the right thing to do. But having a second vote, or a vote to second-guess the will of the British people, is not an acceptable way forward.”

There appears to be growing disquiet among MPs – both from the leave and remain camps – about the government’s decision to press ahead with triggering article 50, which starts the two-year “divorce process”, without consulting parliament about the kind of relationship the UK should have with the EU in the future.

Phillips’s application for the debate was in addition to former Labour leader Ed Miliband’s unsuccessful request for an urgent question on the issue in the Commons. Instead of the question, David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is due to give a statement on plans to repeal the European Communities Act 1972.

[Ed] ….Miliband told the Observer: “Having claimed that the referendum was about returning sovereignty to Britain, it would be a complete outrage if May were to determine the terms of Brexit without a mandate from parliament.

“There is no mandate for a ‘hard Brexit’, and I don’t believe there is a majority in parliament for [it] either. Given the importance of these decisions for the UK economy … it has to be a matter for MPs.”

Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: “My great worry is that while there will be a vote on repealing the 1972 European Communities Act, which is about the decision to leave the EU, it will be left to the executive alone to decide the terms of Brexit. That would not be remotely acceptable.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/10/tory-mp-anna-soubry-concerned-rush-hard-brexit

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Oct 2016

Posted under

EU Referendum, Post-Brexit Adjustments, UKIP (local)

Nominative determinism and 22 MEPs who need to resign

How ironic (as Owl is sure many people will point out) that
the UKIP MEP who allegedly got into an altercation with another UKIP MEP (Stephen Woolfe tipped as yet another potential leader) is called Mike Hookem!

But also how shocking that these people – who have got what they want and despise the EU – should still be around the European Parliament, sponging off it.

On his website, Hookem says that he joined the party because he was committed to showing his constituents “what a corrupt and dictatorial system the European Union is and how many of the decisions taken by faceless, unelected bureaucrats, directly affect them”. As far as we know he has not complained about being paid by them.

Our UKIP MEP is William, Earl of Dartmouth, hardly short of a bob or two.

There are TWENTY TWO of them costing us millions of pounds a year which could better go to our NHS! AND their salaries have gone up 15% as they are paid in EUROS!

(Nominative determinism is the theory that a person’s name has some influence over what they do with their life).

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Hinkley C, Infrastructure, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Transparency

Devon and Somerset devolution on governments “back burner”

Owl has two questions:

if it IS on the back burner, should we be hanging on Somerset’s coat tails, hoping for Hinkley C breadcrumbs and an elected Mayor who will be Hinkley-centric?

and

should we be employing LEP staff and shovelling out expenses to our LEP while things are re-evaluated – or should we cut our losses, scrap it and look to sustaining our own Devon economy in what will possibly be rocky post- Brexit times?

The region’s devolution bid appears to have been shoved onto the back burner this week, following a Government U-turn on the need for elected mayors.

Earlier this year council leaders were optimistic of securing a deal by the autumn, after agreeing on proposals to establish a combined-authority.

But the Treasury now looks to have ruled this possibility out, after revealing its “priority” will be areas with directly elected mayors.

Speaking to the Herald, Treasury minister David Gauke claimed this model provides local authorities with “maximal” opportunities for devolved powers.

“To get the most powers you need the best accountability and that’s delivered by directly-elected mayors,” he said.

“We think [it’s] the best model… so we continue to encourage local authorities to go down that route.

“Those areas that don’t want to go down that route, we will of course still look at the devolution options there.

“I think the priority is delivering the directly elected mayor model.”

This renewed focus on mayors appears to contradict messages from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has previously indicated support for a combined authority model.

Earlier this year, councils in Devon and Somerset voted in favour of creating a combined authority for the region, on the understanding this would improve the area’s chances of a devolution deal.

Critics of the mayoral model express concern about the ability of a single leader to effectively represent areas as economically and geographically diverse as Plymouth and the Mendips.

Responding to Mr Gauke’s comments, leader of Somerset County Council, John Osman, said his understanding “is that the Prime Minister does not think a mayor is essential for devolution”.

“Some initial public engagement this summer suggests that is a view shared by Somerset residents,” he added.

“We have a compelling case for devolved powers and budgets which has the potential to drive productivity, address challenges and capitalise on our many opportunities.

“We aim to continue these with the new relevant minister, Sajid Javid, in the near future to maintain the momentum and take our plans forward.”

Conservative MP for Wells, James Heappey, acknowledged that the recent change in Government leadership has resulted in changes to devolution policy.

He suggested this could provide the region with an opportunity to “take [its] foot off the accelerator” and review its proposals.

“If there is value in doing it, if it’s going to allow public services to be more efficient…. Then clearly we should go ahead [with a combined authority bid],” he said.

“[But] it makes no sense to change things just for the sake of changing things.”

Kevin Foster, the MP for Torbay – which recently voted to scrap its mayoral system – said many residents “won’t be itching” to have another elected mayor.

But he suggested the option is worth considering if it means “getting transport powers and an ability to deliver for local people”.

Mr Gauke did stress that the Government is still keen to extend devolution beyond the high profile city regions.

He said “a lot of focus has been on cities” but it would be good to “show how devolution can work in all parts of the country”.

Read more at http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/ministers-send-devon-devolution-deal-to-the-back-of-the-queue/story-29780812-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

PM must publish secret papers about refusing Brexit vote in Parliament

“The government has been forced by a senior judge to reveal secret legal arguments for refusing to let parliament decide when and how the UK should withdraw from the European Union.

In a preliminary victory for those challenging Theresa May’s power to trigger Brexit, a high court judge, Mr Justice Cranston, has swept aside restrictions on publishing official documents before the hearing on 13 October.

In the released documents, lawyers for the government argue that it is “constitutionally impermissible” for parliament to be given the authority rather than the prime minister and dismiss any notion that the devolved nations – Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – will have any say in the process”.

They add: “The appropriate point at which the UK should begin the procedure required by article 50 [of the European Union treaty] to give effect to [notifying the UK’s exit] is a matter of high, if not the highest policy.

“It is a polycentric decision based upon a multitude of domestic and foreign policy and political concerns for which the expertise of ministers and their officials are particularly well-suited and the courts ill-suited.”

Responding to the release of the skeleton arguments, John Halford, a solicitor partner at Bindmans law firm which represents the People’s Challenge, a crowd-funded group, said: “The court’s order allows a floodlight to be shone on the government’s secret reasons for believing it alone can bring about Brexit without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.

“Those who were unsettled by the government’s insistence on its defence being kept secret will now be surprised by the contents, including submissions that Brexit has nothing constitutionally to do with the Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved governments, that parliament ‘clearly understood’ it was surrendering any role it might have in Brexit by passing the EU Referendum Act, that it has no control over making and withdrawal from treaties and that individuals can have fundamental rights conferred by acts of parliament stripped away if and when the executive withdraws from the treaties on which they are based.

“These arguments will be tested in court next month, but now they can be debated by the public too.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/government-must-disclose-legal-arguments-article-50-procedure-peoples-challenge

Yet here in East Devon we are not allowed to know anything about EDDC’s negotiations with PegasusLife. Strange that.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2016

Posted under

Hugo Swire, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Sovereignty- an example

The [Parliamentary]committee [on Arms Export Control]is split into three factions and its constituent parts have released two reports [recall that arms export to Saudi Arabia was a Hugo Swire ministerial responsibility and he was accused of being ‘economical with the truth’ about the Foreign Office’s involvement in the deals and their ethical implications]:

“In a bizarre twist of parliamentary protocol, three competing cross-party factions on Committee on Arms Export Control (CAEC) are putting out two separate reports recommending different conflicting courses of action.

Members of the Business and International Development committees have banded together to recommend a harsher approach against the autocratic petro state. They want a ban on arms to Saudi until an international investigation into alleged war crimes by the autocracy during the course of its operation in Yemen has concluded.

The Foreign Affairs Committee faction, led by Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, however believes that the legality of the weapons sales should be left to the courts. Campaign Against the Arms Trade has already launched legal challenge, set to be heard in the coming months, meaning arms sales will continue for now. It also backs an international investigation and says arms export control should be more widely addressed.

Meanwhile a third group, MPs drawn from the Defence Committee, are understood to be in such deadlock themselves have backed neither report. The split within CAEC is so bitter than MPs have not even been able to agree to designate one of the reports a “minority” report, as would be the usual practice when MPs have disagreements.

But don’t worry it won’t make a difference because the UK government – that great believer in parliamentary democracy have said PARLIAMENT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON IT”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/saudi-arabian-arms-sales-uk-row-ban-vote-committee-arms-export-control-senate-a7309291.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Sep 2016

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Devolution, Post-Brexit Adjustments

North-East devolution called off by Javid

“Devolution for the north-east of England is “off the table”, communities secretary Sajid Javid has said.

Plans for the area’s first directly elected mayor have been scrapped and the relevant legislation withdrawn.

On Tuesday four of the seven North East Combined Authority councils decided to halt plans amid fears over post-Brexit funding from the government.

Mr Javid was “very disappointed” they had voted against the “ambitious and far-reaching devolution deal”, he said.

Sunderland, Durham, Gateshead and South Tyneside councils said they were not satisfied with reassurances over funding following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.

Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland councils said they remained committed to the plan.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37312978

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Transparency

“Greater Exeter” moves on apace – and Greater Plymouth

Local Government is in a particularly fluid and unstable situation at the moment. Brexit is ripping many plans and budgets wide apart, particularly where Local Enterprise Partnerships and local councils were relying heavily on EU funding or EU-based projects, such as Hinkley C.

There have been hints that the new government is not enamoured of some of the devolution bids and that unitary councils (which would see the demise of district councils) may now be back on the table.

Plymouth, the South Hams and West Devon also seem to be working towards a “Greater Plymouth”:

Click to access 201606The_Plymouth_and_South_West_Devon_Joint_Local_Plan_Newsletter_PDF.pdf

Are we seeing the first signs of an anti-unitary move that would allow our two cities to work autonomously rather than Devon-wide? Is it an insurance policy against the increasing powers being grabbed by our LEP?

Whatever it is – it is being done yet again with no consultation and meetings behind closed doors.

Owl wonders what Mrs May thinks of these legacies of Mr Cameron and, more specifically, Mr Osborne.

Here is an up-to-date post on moves towards a “Greater Exeter”:

In a previous post

Whose Vision is it anyway? Part 1

I highlighted the flamboyantly named Greater Exeter Visioning Board, announced with a fanfare of trumpets and then shifted off into the dark shadows of proceedings held behind firmly closed doors. This post reports the uncomfortable outcome of my further investigations.

Having been told by Exeter City Council that the minutes of the Visioning Board were not made public, I asked some more questions. The City Council’s answers are below.

Q1: Under what authority the board was established and who agreed its terms of reference?

A1: A Memorandum of Understanding was agreed by the Leaders and Chief Executives of Exeter City Council, East Devon District Council and Teignbridge District Council in November 2014. The Memorandum of Understanding is not a legally binding document but all parties use all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding.

Q2: The reasons for its decision not to publish agendas and minutes?

A2: Many of the issues that are discussed at the Board relate to the growth of the Greater Exeter area. It is considered that the board needs to be able to have open discussions through which they can develop ideas, debate live issues and reach decisions. Disclosure of these discussions may inhibit the imparting or commissioning of advice, or the offering or requesting of opinions for consideration.

Q3: Whether it reports its proceedings to councillors and, if so, what opportunities are open to councillors to scrutinise its work?

A3: Council Leaders and Deputy Leaders from each of the three authorities sit on the board.

Q4: If it does not report its proceedings to councillors, to whom is the board accountable?

So what’s next?

We can at least now speculate what the Visioning Board was up to. On 12 July, the City Council’s Executive (the lead councillors) discussed a report by the Assistant Director City Development which set out proposals for establishing:

“a joint strategic plan for the Greater Exeter area which would be prepared in partnership between East Devon District Council, Exeter City Council, Mid Devon District Council and Teignbridge District Council with assistance from Devon County Council. The plan would cover the geographical area of the 4 partner authorities (excluding the area of Dartmoor National Park) but would be limited in scope to cover strategic issues and strategic allocations within those areas with local issues to be considered through linked local plans prepared by each partner authority for their area.” [1]

This was nodded through and then approved by the full Council on 26 July.

In a future post I will explore the challenges for serious public engagement presented by this form of joint working. For the moment, let’s just say that the gestation of this proposal behind closed doors, and the underlying assumption that joint planning is a technocratic issue rather than something which asks the communities what sort of Greater Exeter we want (if indeed we want one at all) does not augur well.

Or is there another agenda?

Of course, I might be completely wrong, and the Greater Exeter Visioning Board has been discussing something completely different. But if so, what? A Greater Exeter Unitary Authority perhaps? There is an obvious link between the joint strategic plan proposal and the so-called “Devolution” bid for spending powers to be transferred from central government to the “Heart of the South West”, made up of Devon County Council, Somerset County Council, Torbay Council and Plymouth City Council [2]. The district councils like Exeter are at present secondary players in this, a position with which Exeter for one is not comfortable.

NOTES:

[1] The full report is at http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/documents/s52597/EXECUTIVE%20-%20Proposed%20Greater%20Exeter%20Strategic%20Plan%20-%2012%20July%202016%20-%20FINAL.pdf

[2] I will have more to say about the “Devolution” bid in a later post . Meanwhile a useful update is at item 76 of the minutes of the Exeter City Council Executive meeting on 12 July, at http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=112&MId=4469&Ver=4

Source: https://agreeninexeter.com

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Aug 2016

Posted under

AONB, Environment (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments, Rural communities

Brexit and the countryside

“Brexit has not yet happened; it is likely to be at least two years before we formally withdraw from the EU. But whilst these policy changes will take years for lawyers and policy makers to wrangle over, more immediate effects are already happening on the ground.

Fundamental to these changes is the element of uncertainty. Depending on which blogs you follow and which papers you read, you will see different degrees of doom mongering. But ultimately uncertainty is bad for business, particularly construction. Indeed in the days after the referendum UK house builders lost as much as 40% of their share value.

July data from the global financial services information company Markit shows that the average drop in house building over the past two months has been the most severe for seven years. Together with the International Monetary Fund reducing its UK 2017 predicted growth figures from 2.2% in April to 1.3% the ingredients seem to be coming together to create the perfect storm for another recession.

Sadly here at Link we know all too well the impact that economic downturns can have on the planning system. Since the last recession started in 2008 there has been a drastic policy shift away from sustainable development towards ‘sustainable economic growth’ –the word ‘sustainable’ seems like an afterthought rather than an integral part of the Government’s vision. This has been manifested in government policy such as the National Planning Policy Framework and also through the systematic stripping back of planning guidance, compounded by the continual drive to cut ‘red tape’. If another recession hits this direction of travel may continue – unless we show policy makers what the effects of these changes would be. We are already hearing, anecdotally, that developers are reconsidering the viability of schemes following the Brexit vote. It is our fear that ‘green infrastructure’, such as the provision of wildlife habitats, will be cut as a part of these re-evaluated deals, along with affordable housing and community facilities, and more and more unsuitable sites will be released for new development.

Whatever happens to the European Directives or the economy, over the next months and years the UK is signed up to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The planning system has a central role in delivering on these goals, particularly goals 11 and 15 – ‘Sustainable cities and communities’ and ‘Life on land’.

So, in these uncertain times whilst continually pushing to maintain robust environmental legislation, we must also be continuing to make the case for nature and the countryside, and the value they add to everyone’s lives, including as part of development projects.

http://www.wcl.org.uk/brexit-promises-more-change-for-the-planning-system.asp

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Aug 2016

Posted under

Coastal communities, Post-Brexit Adjustments

“Calls for post-Brexit fund to boost coastal towns”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/calls-for-post-brexit-fund-to-boost-coastal-towns-and-fisheries/story-29586090-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Aug 2016

Posted under

Post-Brexit Adjustments, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Construction shrinks enormously – particularly for industrial units

Sidford Industrial Park makes even less sense.

“The sharpest decline came in commercial activity, which fell for a second month running and at the fastest pace since December 2009 as investment in offices, industrial units and retail space slumped.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-construction-shrinks-at-fastest-pace-since-2009-after-brexit-vote-a7167681.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jul 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Bad news for our devolution councils and LEP

Particularly our LEP which has totally based its strategy on ever-increasing growth and productivity, continuing to receive EU funds or a similar level of funding from the government and for trickle-down from Hinkley C.

Plan B?

Growing uncertainty over the future of European funding for infrastructure and regeneration projects across England will hit economic growth unless there is clarity from government soon, councils have warned today.

In the strongest warning yet on the potential loss of regeneration funding following the vote to leave the European Union, the Local Government Association called for government action to prevent vital developments being lost.

The group said the majority of EU regeneration funding pledged to the UK in the 2014-2020 funding round remains tied up in thousands of growth-boosting proposals submitted to government. As these had not yet been approved, around £5.3bn of funding could potentially be at risk, particularly following the Brexit vote, LGA chair Lord Porter said.

“Communities and local economies have become increasingly reliant on what EU funds can achieve for them. Councils have used EU funds to help new businesses start-up, create thousands of new jobs, roll out broadband and build new roads and bridges,” he stated.

“Losing any of this vital money over the next few years would be a real blow for local economic growth and communities. It is important for the government to end the current uncertainty and guarantee that local areas will receive all of the EU funding they have been allocated by 2020, regardless of whether decisions over which projects it should be spent on have been made or not.”

In order to benefit from European funds, local areas are required to submit proposals, for example to create jobs or build new infrastructure, with government then deciding which projects the money can be spent on. Although the current period started in 2014, the LGA estimates that billions of this EU funding has yet to be released to local areas. For example, Cornwall and the north-east have both only received 20% of their EU funding allocations so far and Birmingham has only received 25%.

If these funds are not released soon, councils are concerned that Whitehall could hold onto this cash amid the uncertainty caused by the vote to leave the EU.

Projects that could be hit include the rollout of superfast broadband in Cornwall, which is part funded by the EU, as well as investments around Birmingham as part of the Midlands Engine devolution drive.

In addition, programmes in Greater Manchester supporting people into work, such as its flagship Working Well pilot programme that has so far engaged 4,000 residents on Employment and Support Allowance, are underpinned by European money. The initiative is being expanded to help a further 15,000 people who are on out-of-work benefits or in low-paid work. The expansion will run until March 2020 but is reliant on £12m of EU cash it is expecting to receive.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/councils-issue-warning-orn-eu-funding-uncertainty

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Transparency

South-West MPs much more worried about devolution deal than councillors or LEP

“Devon and Somerset councils are reaching a critical stage in their bid for devolved powers, as they decide whether or not to accept a new combined authority model.

All 17 councils involved in the joint devolution bid are required to vote on the proposals, before leaders can progress with negotiations over the summer. It is hoped this could see a deal announced in time for the Autumn statement – but there are concerns among MPs that the current bid lacks clarity.

South West Devon MP Gary Streeter, said he and fellow MPs “greatly recognise and applaud” the work that Devon and Somerset councils have put in so far. But at the moment they have “more questions than answers”. “I think over the next two to three months, when we sit down with the new secretary of state and council leaders, we’re looking for those questions to be answered,” he said. “This is not the fault of the councils, it’s the fault of Government [that] it is still slightly vague and up in the air. “We’re not hostile, we’re just cautious at this stage, and want these questions to be answered. “We want more information about what the benefits will be to our constituents.”

To date, the Conservative Government has awarded 12 devolution deals to cities and regions across the UK. These have passed down greater control over a range of local services, including public health, transport and education.

Devon and Somerset councils collaborated with local national parks, CCGs and the Heart of the South West (HotSW) LEP to submit a joint bid in February. And following their most recent meeting with former local government secretary Greg Clark, they seem optimistic they will secure a deal. However, any progress rests on the individual district, unitary and county councils supporting the creation of a new combined authority (CA) for the region.

The proposal has already been voted through by a number of local authorities – including Exeter, Plymouth and Somerset – with Devon County Council due to vote on Thursday.

Somerset County Council leader John Osman believes the CA model present a far more suitable option than the alternative of a directly elected mayor. And he wants to clarify that it “will not take any powers or responsibilities” from the existing councils. “There is no appetite for a directly elected mayor in the Devon and Somerset area, so the Government have asked for an alternative,” he said.

“What [the combined authority] means is a board with one representative from every one of the 17 councils, the NHS and national parks, who will decide on the new powers and new responsibilities given. “It wont be a new bureaucracy or anything like that, [and] it wont be a massive committee of everybody. It will be 23 people around the room, one from each authority.”

If the proposals are accepted, Devon and Somerset will become the first region to receive devolved powers through a non-mayoral CA model. However, any progress rests on the individual district, unitary and county councils supporting the creation of a new combined authority (CA) for the region.

The proposal has already been voted through by a number of local authorities – including Exeter, Plymouth and Somerset – with Devon County Council due to vote on Thursday.

Somerset County Council leader John Osman believes the CA model present a far more suitable option than the alternative of a directly elected mayor. And he wants to clarify that it “will not take any powers or responsibilities” from the existing councils. “There is no appetite for a directly elected mayor in the Devon and Somerset area, so the Government have asked for an alternative,” he said. “What [the combined authority] means is a board with one representative from every one of the 17 councils, the NHS and national parks, who will decide on the new powers and new responsibilities given. “It wont be a new bureaucracy or anything like that, [and] it wont be a massive committee of everybody. It will be 23 people around the room, one from each authority.”

If the proposals are accepted, Devon and Somerset will become the first region to receive devolved powers through a non-mayoral CA model.

Leaders are hoping that all councils will be on side with the proposals by the end of July, to enable them to start further negotiations with Whitehall over the summer. Their next aim is to have a draft deal from the Government for local authorities to vote on by the end of October. They believe this could lead to an official deal being announced in November’s Autumn Statement.

Councillor Osman admits that the recent cabinet reshuffle – which saw Greg Clark replaced by Sajid Javid – has created some uncertainty. But he says it remains his ambition “to get a deal done and dusted by November time”. “We are now getting into contact with the new secretary of state and the chancellor to say we are still on track and working with civil servants,” he said. “We need to hear back from them to ensure they are still carrying on with the previous administrations line. “I can’t think why he wouldn’t to be honest, it was a conservative policy. But we’ve made contact and we’ve just got it wait for a response.”

The HotSW bid asks for a range of powers, including greater control over road and rail investment, more influence over house building and land use, and better integration of health and social care. Similar responsibilities have been devolved to other areas, including Cornwall, but only authorities with mayors have gained significant control over health budgets and business rates. The additional funding allocated to fund devolution also varies from deal to deal, starting from £15 million a year in Lincolnshire, to £36 million in the West Midlands.

At a Plymouth City Council meeting earlier this month, Labour councillor Tudor Evans called for a “serious conversation” about money. He argued the South West deal must not “set up the combined authority… for a fall”. He told the council chamber: “We’ve known for along time things like adult social care… health services… public health [are] inadequately funded. “We must use this… to unlock the bad funding formulae that have consigned us to not doing the best we can for too many years.”

Coun. Osman states that “the devil is in the detail” when it comes to finances. But he is confident that as councils take on new responsibilities from Government “funding will hopefully follow”. “If not, there is an inkling that we will be able to get some other sources of funding well,” he said. “Not council tax rises or anything like that, but money from central government or business rate rises.”

An area of underlying tension throughout the development of the bid has been geography, with Government keen for bids to focus on LEP boundaries. However, there are those who argue an authority which straddles multiple cities and counties will lack the sense of unity and identity enjoyed by somewhere like Cornwall. Other large multi-authority bids have come close to unravelling, with the East Anglia deal eventually being split into two after Cambridgeshire County Council rejected plans.

Gary Streeter points out that while the tendency in Somerset is “to look Eastwards toward Bristol and London”, in Devon the natural instinct is to look West toward Cornwall. “Most of us feel that… the region should be Devon and Cornwall, but we seem to have gone past that point,” he said. “Some people feel more strongly about it than others, particularly I think the Somerset MPs…. but is not necessarily a deal breaker. “There seems to be broad support for establishing Devon and Somerset. And there is support for a combined authority, provided we know how its going to work and its not simply adding another tier of government.”

Coun. Osman believes a break-up of the Devon and Somerset alliance is “unlikely”, adding that ministers are “pleased” that the 23 authorities have remained united. He said council leaders and staff will work hard over coming months to make the most of an opportunity to “shape the agenda for the South West”.

Mr Streeter is more reserved, suggesting that the new secretary of state may want to take a fresh look at the devolution agenda. He states that a November timetable “is a possibility” but “a lot of water has got to flow under that bridge yet”, and MPs will get a vote on the final deal. “Over the next two or three months… the detail [of the deal] is likely to change and emerge, so I think people shouldn’t get too hung up on the detail,” he added. “My own feeling is that with the new secretary of state coming in… some of the slight vagueness of the current proposal will be addressed.”

At a glance: What is a combined authority?

The 17 Devon and Somerset councils making a joint bid for devolution have been asked to support a new combined authority in order to progress to a deal.

Councillors stress this is not an attempt to merge authorities, or to take powers from lower tier councils– but there is potential for this to change.

Ministers first legislated for the creation of combined authorities in 2009, to allow councils to pool resources for the delivery of local services.

Their powers were enhanced by the passage of the recent Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, and the model has subsequently been taken up in a number of areas bidding for devolution.

In areas like Great Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, they have opted to establish CAs under the control of an elected mayor. However, the Heart of the South West (HotSW) region could be one of the first areas to secure a devolution package with a non-mayoral CA.

As proposals currently stand, the Devon and Somerset CA would be made up of one member from each council, national park, Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) involved with the bid. Council leaders claim it will not be a physical entity or a “new bureaucracy,” but will simply be a way to coordinate the distribution of new funds and powers throughout the region.

The aim is to improve oversight without resorting to a directly elected mayor system, which many see as unsuitable for a region as large and diverse as Devon and Somerset. However, reports state that it is possible to change to a mayoral CA at a later date, and for powers to be transferred from lower tier councils “subject to agreement”.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/devon-and-somerset-on-cusp-of-devolution-deal-but-mps-want-more-clarity/story-29549453-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jul 2016

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Government must re-assess all high cost projects says National Audit Office

“There needs to be a “step change” in the way the civil service does business in the wake of Brexit and other challenges, the comptroller and auditor general has said.

In a speech to the Institute for Government last week, Amyas Morse said the civil service was “over-committed” and should abandon projects that are not “mission critical”.

“We need to ask ourselves, can the public sector deliver Hinckley Point C, a third runway, HS2, a northern powerhouse, nuclear decommissioning, Trident renewal and restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster all at the same time?” he asked.

“All these projects are drawing on the same pool of skills and many of these contain optimism bias that they will be able to meet their skills needs at an appropriate cost.”

He suggested that, if the civil service was over-committed, it should stop doing things, either by not commissioning new projects or by cancelling existing ones.

“Prioritising is about making these choices intelligently,” Morse said. “So we need to know how much scarce resource would be released by a particular decision and what consequence that decision would have elsewhere.”

Brexit, he said, was an “abnormal challenge” and brought with it “a completely new layer of unknowns and requirements”.

Existing Whitehall activities were being denuded of capability as civil servants were pulled away to work on aspects of Brexit.

Should Scotland leave the UK – something Morse dubbed “Scoxit” – the civil service would become even more stretched and could grind to a halt under its own weight.

“We will have set civil servants a Herculean task and set them up to fail. And none of us can afford that. I am calling for a step change in the way we manage the activities of government.”

In particular, every Whitehall department will need to carry out a stock take of its interactions with the European Union and new systems and operations put in place to fill the gap left by Brussels.

Brexit would have to be a priority across government and not just in the new Brexit department, he stressed.

“Let’s use this historic juncture to change the way we manage government and plan on a holistic basis so that ministers and civil servants can look across the whole of government activities and decide what is essential and what is not,” he concluded. “This is crucial for achieving value for money.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/whitehall-must-review-all-projects-free-capacity-eu-exit-says-morse