Category Archives: Scrutiny

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, County councillors, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Sarah Randall Johnson, Scrutiny, Transparency

Another council refers its hospital closure to Secretary of State

“The future of the inpatient ward at Rothbury Community Hospital is going to the top, after councillors voted to refer the matter to the Health Secretary.

After the joint executive board of the Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) last month voted unanimously in favour of permanently closing the inpatient ward and shaping the existing services around a Health and Wellbeing Centre at the hospital, the proposed closure of the 12 beds was discussed by Northumberland County Council’s health and wellbeing overview and scrutiny committee this morning.

And now that closure is on hold and the final decision rests with the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. The aim of today’s meeting was to decide if the consultation with the committee had been adequate; if the committee felt the proposal would not be in the best interests of the health service in Northumberland; and therefore it it had sufficient evidence of these concerns to make a referral to the Secretary of State for Health. And as part of her statement to members, Katie Scott, from the Save Rothbury Community Hospital campaign group, reflected on this first issue.

“Surely at all stages the scrutiny committee should have been consulted? It seems to us that you have been ignored,” she said. “I believe today is the first opportunity in over 14 months for the committee to fully examine the proposal to take away our beds.”

She also questioned the reasons put forward by the CCG for the proposed closure – the alleged savings, bed underuse and the drive to treat people in their own homes – claiming all are flawed, as well as saying the consultation has been ‘defective’.

However, Stephen Young, Northumberland CCG’s strategic head of corporate affairs, outlined the lengthy process of consultation, including with the committee, and explained that it was made clear to councillors that there was no local support for the proposed closure. He added: “We believe there’s alternative, suitable provision in the area.” His colleague, Dr Alistair Blair, the clinical chairman, set out the clinical reasons behind the proposed closure, which included the fall in bed occupancy and the wider national context around more care being provided at home and why this was beneficial.

He added that they had been monitoring the impact on healthcare services elsewhere in Northumberland for 12 months while the ward has been shut and there have been no adverse consequences. “We understand that this does not have local support but we have to look at the evidence base,” Dr Blair said. “We hope the Health and Wellbeing Centre will benefit more local people.”

One local who benefitted from the ward prior to its closure was Coun Steven Bridgett’s grandmother – the care she received at the hospital prior to her death in 2012 was the focus of an emotional address by the local ward member: “Gran was so well looked after and cared for that you would forget that she was 91 and had most of her body failing her.”

It was his statement which probably resonated most with the Rothbury residents who had filled the council chamber at County Hall in Morpeth. “We are no more than numbers on paper to the CCG,” he said. Turning their attention to the three questions mentioned above, a majority of the committee members considered that the consultation with the committee had not been adequate as the preferred option for consultation, ie, the closure of the ward and the creation of a Health and Wellbeing Centre, was decided and the consultation started before being brought to the scrutiny committee, albeit the CCG brought the matter to the first available meeting once that decision was taken.

A majority of the councillors also felt that whether the proposal was in the best interests of the health service in Northumberland could not be fully assessed as it had not been made clear exactly what the Health and Wellbeing Centre will be and there were also questions over the robustness of the data in relation to future-proofing and knock-on impacts in the rest of the county.

Therefore, following around half-an-hour spent thrashing out their reasons amid advice from the council’s senior legal officer, members voted to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. In each case, members voted by five votes to two with one abstention.”

http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/future-of-rothbury-hospital-ward-goes-to-secretary-of-state-1-8808912

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Sarah Randall Johnson, Scrutiny

Referrals by councils to Secretary of State increase – but not in Devon where local Tories said it wasn’t worth doing

“2017 is shaping up to be a bumper year for NHS service change proposals in England being referred to the Secretary of State for Health by local politicians. And that means a bumper year for initial assessments by IRP, the independent body that advises the Secretary of State. [This is what would have happened – mandatory independent scrutiny – if the DCC adult care scrutiny committee had not had a block Tory vote to refuse it – spurred on by Diviani ignoring the wishes of his own council and some very dubious chairing by Sarah Randall-Johnson. What were DCC Tories afraid of, Owl wonders?

“We saw just two initial assessment letters in 2016. The assessment letter IRP published on 18 October responding to concerns raised by Thurrock Council about the location for a specialist scanner, is the fifth IRP has published this year and we’re waiting for more to progress through the system.

Local councillors are uniquely placed to understand public sensitivities around changes to local health services, so it’s no surprise that NHS legislation gives them a crucial role in overseeing health service change programmes. The role is important and the legislation sets out responsibilities for NHS and council leaders to make sure the process is effective.

The IRP’s assessment of the Thurrock referral is a timely reminder of the requirement for councils to formally join together to scrutinise proposals that affect more than one local authority area. In this case it seems Thurrock councillors declined to take part in a joint scrutiny committee and instead dealt with the matter on its own. The process is there for good reason and not following it risks weakening whatever good case a council has for making the referral.

The regulations allow councils to come together to form joint scrutiny committees whenever they see fit. The same regulations require councils to form a joint committee when “a relevant NHS body or health service provider consults more than one local authority’s health scrutiny function about substantial reconfiguration proposals”. The rules mean where a section 30 ‘mandatory joint health scrutiny committee’ is in place, only the mandatory committee is allowed to respond to the consultation; exercise the power to require information about the proposals to be provided to it; and require people from the relevant body to appear before it to answer questions relevant to the proposals.

The power to make referrals to the Secretary of State for Health is different. Councils can choose to delegate that to a mandatory joint scrutiny committee, or retain it. So the rules would have allowed Thurrock to participate in the mandatory committee and still consider the matter of referral alone. Would it have strengthened their case to have done that? It’s hard to envisage that following the required process would have weakened it.”

https://www.consultationinstitute.org/focus-health-scrutiny-irp-essex-cancer-scanner-review/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, Planning System, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Hammond’s threat to “hire builders” for green belt – conflict of interest?

[see post earlier today]

The question mark about conflict of interest is because, with this government, NOTHING EVER seems to conflict.

Is it a conflict of interest to threaten to put “government employed” builders on to the green belt if you are an MP and Chancellor of the Exchequer AND you own MASSES of land adjacent to said green belt?

If you are a Conservative MP and Chancellor, with the opportunity to get shedloads of money from it, apparently not. At least in their universe:

“Chancellor Philip Hammond could make millions of pounds if green belt land he owns gets planning permission for new homes in the future.

The Tory minister purchased three acres of greenbelt land neighbouring his family home in Surrey from housebuilder Martin Grant for £100,000.

He then came to an “option” agreement with the housebuilder in the 2008 sale that allows the housebuilder to buy the Chancellor’s land back in the future and any uplift in the value of the land would be split equally between the two.

A local property expert has estimated that should Hammond’s land get planning permission then it could be worth £2m an acre, netting him a potential £3million profit.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/chancellor-philip-hammond-could-make-10765588

“Dispatches discovered that one such landowner who could benefit from such a windfall is the Chancellor Philip Hammond. In 2008 Hammond bought 3 acres of greenbelt land neighbouring his family home in Surrey from housebuilder Martin Grant for £100,000. Martin Grant Homes is planning to build 1,700 homes on greenbelt land near Mr Hammond’s home which has already been rezoned for housing.”

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/secrets-of-britain-s-new-homes-channel-4-dispatches

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, East Devon Tories, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, Martin Shaw (Seaton), NHS (local), Scrutiny

DCC has no evidence that new way of working – is working!

From the blog of Independent East Devon Alliance county councillor Martin Shaw (Seaton and Colyton) who fought valiantly with Independent DCC councillor Claire Wright to save our community hospital beds, which was defeated by Conservative block voting for the closures.

“There is new evidence that Brexit is adding to the NHS’s chronic staff shortage. Far fewer nurses and doctors from other EU countries are coming for jobs in the UK, while many of those already here are leaving – or plan to leave.

Locally, the RD&E is struggling to recruit care workers for the ‘new model of care’ to replace community beds. Council officers freely admit that Brexit is making Devon’s social care recruitment crisis worse, and at the County Council meeting on 5th October I asked for figures on the number of people from other EU countries in health, social care and education in the county. The answer was that the Council can’t produce them – in a follow-up question I asked the Cabinet to remedy that, and also to reassure EU citizens that they are valued here.

Many people voted for Brexit partly to help the NHS – but are now realising that it is doing the opposite. Of course the Leave campaign said that it wanted to allow professionals like nurses and doctors still to come to Britain – it was more the unskilled workers it wanted to stop (although where that would leave our farming and tourism industries is another problem). What this argument overlooked is that doctors and nurses who move here are not just making a decision about a job – they are looking at whether the country is open and welcoming. The message that Britain didn’t want foreigners went out loud and clear to the people we need to keep our NHS going, as well as everyone else.

Leave voters rightly hoped to see more money go to our underfunded NHS. However it is now universally recognised that the Leave campaign’s idea of saving ‘£350 million a week’ was utterly misleading. Much of the money never goes to the EU (because of the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher) and most of the rest comes back to support things like agriculture, scientific research and regional development in places like the South West – expenditure that the British government will need to replace. Recently it has become clear that the economy has fallen back since the referendum to the extent that the Government is already losing much more in tax revenues than it will eventually save by leaving the EU. So the NHS has no hope of gaining money from Brexit, and is hit on the staffing side too.”

New evidence that Brexit is harming NHS staffing – but Devon County Council has no figures for the local situation

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Oct 2017

Posted under

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

Hinkley C subsidising UK nuclear weapon industry

So NOW see just why our Local Enterprise Partnership – where many past and present board members have and had nuclear and arms industry interests – is pouring money into Hinkley C.

“Scientists tell MPs government is using expensive power project to cross-subsidise military by maintaining nuclear skills

“The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists.

In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. …

“What our research suggests is that British low-carbon energy strategies are more expensive than they need to be, in order to maintain UK military nuclear infrastructures,” said Stirling.

“And without assuming the continuation of an extremely expensive UK civil nuclear industry, it is likely that the costs of Trident would be significantly greater.”

The Hinkley Point project has been criticised for its huge cost. The French electricity company EDF is currently in the early stages of constructing the plant near Bridgwater, Somerset, in partnership with the China General Nuclear Power Group.

The government has agreed a minimum price of £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) for electricity produced by Hinkley Point, the first new-build nuclear power plant in the UK since 1995. Under this agreement, if the usual wholesale price is lower, the consumer pays the difference in price. The current wholesale electricity price is around £42 per MWh, so the electricity consumer would pay EDF an extra £50 per MWh.

Last month, the government agreed a “strike price” of £57.50 per MWh for offshore windfarms off Scotland and Yorkshire, far below the Hinkley guaranteed price.

This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”.

Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”.

Johnstone said the decision-making process behind Hinkley raised questions about transparency and accountability, saying: “In this ever more networked world, both civil and military nuclear technologies are increasingly recognised as obsolete. Yet it seems UK policymaking is quietly trying to further entrench the two – in ways that have been escaping democratic accountability.”

At a hearing held by the PAC in parliament on Monday, senior civil servants defended the Hinkley deal after a National Audit Office report concluded that it was “risky and expensive”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny

“Why won’t ministers acknowledge social care’s growing emergency?”

Another of those articles you cannot summarise – you need the whole dreadful story. 12 consultations in 20 years, no action!

“How close to the brink is the social care system? In the severest warning yet that it is fast becoming unsustainable, council leaders will on Wednesday warn that their ability to support older and disabled people is “veering steadily towards the impossible”.

The picture in children’s services is no better. The body representing directors of those services reports that their ability to make any impact at all on the lives of 4 million children living below the poverty line is increasingly constrained by relentless funding cuts.

As leaders of both children’s and adult services in England meet this week in Bournemouth for their annual joint conference, they will reflect ruefully on the deafening silence from last week’s Conservative party gathering in terms of any relevant policy or funding initiative.

Most alarming for the adult sector was the complete absence from the prime minister’s ill-fated conference address of any reference to the system reform that had been flagged in the party’s general election manifesto, promising “dignity and protection in old age”.

It was left to social care minister Jackie Doyle-Price to announce that the consultation trailed in the Queen’s speech in June would not begin until 2018.

Mark Lever, co-chair of the Care and Support Alliance, a grouping of more than 80 care charities, describes the news as incredibly disappointing: “This year marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of the royal commission on care and there have been 12 separate consultations and reviews since then. Yet the big questions on funding have repeatedly been dodged and the system is on its knees.”

Twelve months ago, the adult sector was described by its regulator, the Care Quality Commission, as “approaching a tipping point”. In a report on Wednesday, the Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils, will lament that “inertia remains the characteristic we typically associate with the prospects for future funding and reform”.

While welcoming the £2bn one-off emergency cash injection unveiled in the spring budget, the LGA says the sector still needs £1.3bn immediately to help stabilise the care provider market. It also projects a £1bn funding gap by 2020 – not accounting for further cost pressures, such as the question of who will pay for care workers to receive the full minimum wage when doing sleep-in shifts.

Izzi Seccombe, who chairs the LGA’s community wellbeing board and is Tory leader of Warwickshire county council, says: “Councils have a proud record of getting on with the job of delivering for their local residents, and doing so in partnership, but it is no exaggeration to say that the circumstances are now veering steadily towards the impossible.”

Seccombe’s reference to partnership is pointed. Relations between local government and the NHS have soured in recent weeks amid recriminations over responsibility for delayed hospital discharges of older patients and intense government pressure to clear beds in time for a feared winter flu crisis. The LGA is furious that some councils deemed to be not pulling their weight face penalties.

One example given in Wednesday’s report is Sheffield council. Despite being one of the 20 authorities with the highest rates of delayed discharge locally, it has nearly halved the daily number of hospital beds occupied by people medically fit to go home – but held up by issues such as arrangement of a social care package – from 171 in February to 90 in July.

A survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services of about 100 councils, also released on Wednesday, will reveal that some have already been fined – by up to £100,000 – since April for causing delayed discharges. More than half are expecting to be overspent on adult social care in 2017-18.

Amid mounting concern over the fragile state of the homecare market, 48% of the councils surveyed say that homecare providers have handed back contracts in the past five months because they cannot fulfil them or make them pay. That’s up on the 37% who said the same in a previous survey in the spring.

More than 45% of councils say they find it difficult to find homecare providers, while 20% report difficulty securing places in residential homes and 52% say spaces in nursing homes are hard to come by.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services will use the Bournemouth conference to set out an eight-point plan for government to tackle poverty, including making good what the LGA forecasts will be a £2bn shortfall in funding of the children’s sector by 2020.”

https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/oct/11/why-wont-ministers-acknowledge-social-cares-growing-emergency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, General Election, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, Scrutiny

Does Jacob Rees-Mogg contribute to his local food bank? They need it

“After Jacob Rees-Mogg said he found the huge rise in food banks “uplifting” in a live interview on LBC, we went to find out how many people in his constituency use this service.

According to the manager of the Somer Valley Food bank Paul Woodward, over 1,500 people used the food bank last year. Since April, in just over six months, almost 700 people have come to collect food already. This is added to numbers from Bath, where local food banks can see over 20 people a day.

While Jacob Rees-Mogg said food banks are a good thing as they show what a “good compassionate country” the UK is, the numbers paint a different picture.

According to data by the Trussel Trust, which accounts for about half the food banks in the UK, the number of emergency food packs given out has risen from 61,468 in 2010/2011 to 1,182,954 last year.

The Somer Valley Food Bank stated they currently have more stock going out than going in. There are collection boxes at local churches and supermarkets. Mr Woodward said they need the usual long-life food such as tinned meat, fish and vegetables, but also UHT milk and sponge pudding.”

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/surprising-number-people-who-need-588920

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), Martin Shaw (Seaton), NHS (local), Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

DCC Ind. East Devon Alliance Councillor Martin Shaw will try again to get DCC to see sense on bed closures

“PRESS RELEASE
Tomorrow (Thursday) Devon County Council will discuss a new call to review the controversial closure of beds in community hospitals in Honiton, Okehampton, Seaton and Whipton.

I have been told my motion will be discussed, rather than referred to Cabinet as is normal with most motions.

The motion proposes to redress the widely perceived failure of the Health Scrutiny Committee to properly scrutinise NEW Devon CCG’s decisions, which has allowed the CCG to go ahead with the closures.

The motion asks Health Scrutiny, which alone has legal power to refer the decision, to look again the outstanding issues, while at the same time committing the Council to alerting the Secretary of State to the disquiet in the County over the issue.

The motion also highlights the urgent call by Simon Stevens, Head of the NHS in England, to free up more hospital beds in view of the danger of an extreme flu season this winter.

I will issue the text of my speech tomorrow morning.

Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Privatisation, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

The free market – where you are free to walk away from responsibility for your actions

“The boss of Monarch was setting-up his own firm as the stricken airline was going to the wall, it has emerged.

Andrew Swaffield insisted he was “heart broken” by the firm’s collapse, with the loss of more than 1,800 jobs. Yet as Monarch was for fighting for survival, polo playing Mr Swaffield found time to get a new firm for himself off the ground.

Records show electronic paperwork to establish Alcedo Consulting Services was received by Companies House last Friday. The two directors are Mr Swaffield and his partner William Low, 51. The company was formally incorporated on Monday – the same day Monarch plunged into administration.

Stefan Stern, director of the High Pay Centre, branded the timing “shocking”. He said: “He appears to have been planning his escape route before the passengers or crew. “It used to be women and children first, now it seems to be chief executive first. “It’s such bad taste and, frankly, stupid, to do this now.”

The firm is named after Mr Swaffield’s polo team, Alcedo, which recently won several trophies at the Cowdray Park Polo Club in West Sussex.

In a message seen by the Mirror, he insisted Monday’s collapse of Monarch was “the hardest day of my entire career. “Seeing the end of the company and 1,800 people losinzg their jobs has been heart breaking.’

Mr Swaffield previously ran a consultancy firm, CST Consulting, after losing his job at British Airways in 2005. He said: “I have done the same again today knowing that I am leaving, so that I can start the process of planning my future and if I manage to secure any work I will have a company through which to process it. “It can take up to a year to secure chief executive level roles and consulting is a good stop gap.”

Records show Mr Swaffield became chief executive of another company, Shelfco 2017, that was set-up on September 25. The other directors include Nils Christy, Monarch’s chief operating officer, and Christopher Bennett, its finance director. It is registered at Monarch’s Luton Airport headquarters.

It came as millions of holidaymakers and bank customers are set to pick-up the bill for Monarch’s rescue flights.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boss-monarch-set-up-new-11282103

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality, Minority Government, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin

“Boris Johnson ‘says Cabinet minister’s salary of £141,000 is not enough to live on’ “

“Boris Johnson has told friends his minister’s salary of £141,405 a year is not enough to live on, according to reports.

The Foreign Secretary told friends his annual earnings were insufficient because of his “extensive family responsibilities”, according to a report in The Sunday Times.

The Tory MP has four children with his second wife, Marina Wheeler. He also fathered a daughter during an affair with arts consultant Helen MacIntyre, failing to get an injunction to prevent the reporting of her existence. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-ministers-salary-not-enough-a7976641.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Lobbying, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Standards Committee, Transparency

MP getting £3,000 per month from a lobbying, that’s fine – isn’t it?

David Mitchell nails it in The Observer:

“The Tory politician James Duddridge pockets £3,300 a month from a lobbying company, but don’t worry. If it were a problem, it wouldn’t be legal.

What is the advantage of letting sitting MPs work for lobbying firms? What are the pluses of that, for the country? Because we do allow it, so I’m assuming there must be some upside.

After all, there are clear advantages to many things we don’t allow: smoking on petrol station forecourts, for example. Allowing that would mean, if you’re addicted to smoking, or enjoy smoking, or think smoking makes you look cool, you could do it while filling your car with petrol, polishing its bonnet, going to buy snacks, checking the tyres and so on. You wouldn’t be inconvenienced by either the discomfort of nicotine withdrawal or a hiatus in the image of nonchalant suavity that having a fag in your mouth invariably projects.

And the same goes for those essaying auras of Churchillian defiance and grit, or Hannibal from The A-Team-style twinkly maverick leadership, to which a lit cigar clamped between the teeth can be vital, particularly if you’ve got a weak chin.

Similarly, if you’re a pipe-smoking detective of the Sherlock Holmes mould and are, perhaps, investigating a crime on a petrol station forecourt, or merely passing across one while contemplating the intricacies of a non-forecourt-related mystery, you wouldn’t have to suffer a lapse in the heightened analytical brain function that you’ve found smoking a pipe crucial to attaining. Interrupting such processes to buy petrol may cause murderers to walk free.

And then there’s the possibility that allowing smoking at petrol stations will marginally increase overall consumption, and therefore sales, of tobacco products – all the Holmeses and Churchills and Bonds will be able to get a few more smokes in before they die of cancer – which would slightly improve trade and GDP, and so create jobs.

Maybe Duddridge just pops in once a month and is a master of clearing photocopier jams.

Nevertheless, I am not, on balance, in favour of allowing smoking on petrol station forecourts. The manifold advantages are, in my view, outweighed by the several disadvantages: passive smoking for non-smoking users of the forecourt, nicotine staining of the underside of the canopy, and various others I can’t currently bring to mind.

But you’d think, in a system that flattered itself as non-mad, as I believe the British one still does, practices that are legal would be bristling with more boons for the community than those that aren’t. That’s got to be the vague rule of thumb, right? So then, what are the good things about allowing sitting MPs to take paid work from lobbying firms? What are the upsides to that?

The downsides are as hard to miss as a few hundred thousand litres of subterranean petrol suddenly exploding. Let’s take an example from the news last week. It was reported that James Duddridge, a Tory MP who was minister for Africa from 2014 to 2016, is being paid £3,300 for eight hours work a month by a lobbying company called Brand Communications.

It’s one of the few lobbying companies not to have signed up to the industry’s code of conduct, which prohibits employing sitting MPs. You may say that makes it a nasty firm, but I don’t blame it. Why would it sign up to extra rules if it doesn’t have to? That’s like volunteering to observe a lower speed limit than the one prescribed by law.

The law is absolutely fine with Duddridge’s little earner. Former ministers’ jobs just have to be approved by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, itself described by the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee as a “toothless regulator” (these committees are so bitchy!), since it has no statutory powers of redress. Then again, as its rulings are almost invariably “That’s fine”, what powers does it really need?

Duddridge himself says it’s all legit because Brand Communications is “not a public affairs company”, but the company’s website says “James will bring his deep knowledge of Africa, experience of operating at the highest levels of government and extensive networks to Brand Communications”, which sounds a bit public affairsy to me.

But I don’t know: maybe it’s fine. We can’t know it’s definitely not fine. Admittedly, according to the Times, the head of one of Britain’s leading lobbying firms called it “an appalling example of bad practice”, and the chairman of the Association of Professional Political Consultants said, “MPs should not be lobbyists. It is wrong to be a lobbyist and make the law at the same time,” but maybe it’s still fine.

Maybe James just pops in once a month and is incredibly helpful in ways that don’t conflict with his public duties. Maybe he’s full of creative ideas, a huge boost to office morale and a master of clearing photocopier jams. And then he pops back to parliament and doesn’t think about Brand Communications until the next month, no matter what issues concerning their interests cross his desk as an MP and member of the Commons International Development Committee. Yes, maybe it’s fine.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/01/lobbying-firms-mps-james-duddridge-brand-communications

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Anti-abortion Rees-Mogg defends investment in abortion pill manufacturer

Summary: Rees-Mogg doesn’t mind at all if his investments are unethical and it’s ok to lie about what pills can be used for – the Vatican would find that ok.

“Multi-millionaire Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted his investment firm profits from abortion pills – even though he wants to deny rape victims the right to terminations.

His company has nearly £5million-worth of shares in the Indonesian firm Kalbe Farma, which produces the pills to prevent ulcers.

They also trigger terminations, can be bought in pharmacies and are used widely in Indonesia – where there are an estimated two million illegal abortions each year.

Father-of-six Mr Rees-Mogg defended the investments and said he would not resign his investment post.

But he admitted: “It would be wrong to pretend that I like it but the world is not always what you want it to be. …

The staunch Catholic, who is tipped to succeed PM Theresa May, is a partner in Somerset Capital Management, the investment firm he co-founded in 2007.

The North East Somerset MP, 48, is paid more than £14,500 a month for 30 hours of work for the company.

He will not reveal the dividend payments he receives for his 15 per cent share in the firm, based in London’s upmarket Belgravia.

But partners have trousered nearly £60million between them since 2010.

According to this year’s interim report, two of Somerset Capital Management’s investment funds hold £4.8million in shares in Jakarta-based Kalbe Farma.

The pharmaceutical firm make misoprostol, a generic abortion drug sold under the brand name Invitec. They also manufacture oral contraceptives.

Invitec is marketed under its other use as a gastric ulcer preventer because abortion, other than in cases of rape or to save a mother’s life, is illegal in Indonesia.

But the international women’s rights organisation Women on Waves say it is available in Indonesian pharmacies.

The Dutch-based organisation advises women in Indonesia on how to obtain the drug and the circumstances in which terminations are legal in the country.

It says: “Abortion is permitted to save a woman’s life, in cases of foetal impairment and in cases of rape. Spousal authorisation is required. Misoprostol is available in pharmacies under the names Chromalux, Citrosol, Cytostol, Gastrul, Invitec and Noprostol.”

Mr Rees-Mogg defended the investments.

He said: “Kalbe Farma obeys Indonesian law so it’s a legitimate investment and there’s no hypocrisy. The law in ­Indonesia would satisfy the Vatican.”

In an earlier phone call, Mr Rees-Mogg said he had been unaware the company made the drug.

But he added: “I don’t manage the funds and haven’t done so since I became an MP. But the funds have to be run in accordance with the requirements of the investors and not according to my religious beliefs.

“This is not something I would wish to invest in personally but you have a duty as an investment manager not to impose constraints on investors.”

Mr Rees-Mogg accepted he did profit “in a very roundabout way”.

He went on: “This company does not procure the abortion of babies. It’s not my money in these investments and I profit from the total amount of client money we hold, not the investments we make.”

The Eton and Oxford educated MP caused uproar this month when he was interviewed on ITV’s Good Morning Britain by Susanna Reid and denounced abortion as “morally ­indefensible” in all circumstances.

That, he said, included cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest. He added: “Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception.”

The MP said this was not government policy, but his own personal view based on Catholic teachings.

… Misoprostol can be prescribed to prevent stomach ulcers, or induce labour in pregnant women by causing contractions.

But when used with another drug, mifepristone, it ends pregnancy in NHS medical abortions to avoid surgical procedures.

Misoprostol is often used alone to bring about an abortion, particularly in countries where termination is illegal.”

Source: Daily Mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/pro-life-tory-multi-millionaire-11267331

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Golden Quadrangle LEP, Golden Triangle LEP, Great South West LEP, Hinkley C, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Great South West” LEP for LEPs! The South-West Regional Development Agency rising from its ashes?

We’ve had the Heart of the South West LEP!
We’ve had the “Golden Triangle” LEP (Exeter, Plymouth, Torquay)
We”ve even had the “Golden Quadrangle” LEP (Owl’s suggestion for adding in Cornwall or Dorset)

NOW we have the “Golden Pentangle” (adding in Cornwall AND Dorset)
yet ANOTHER unelected, unaccountable and non-transparent quango:

THE GREAT SOUTH WEST LEP!

first reported by Owl in August 2016 here:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/08/26/forget-heart-of-the-south-west-hello-great-south-west/

An update …

It seems plans are well-advanced for the “super” Local Enterprise Partnership of Local Enterprise Partnerships! They now even have a (very poor) website!

Those who remember life BEFORE our own LEP will recall that it was preceded by the much-derided South-West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) – so despised by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition that one of its first actions was to dispose of it and replace it with business-led, business-dominated, business-driven LEPs.

In our case it didn’t exactly work that way as OUR LEP (Heart of the South West – ie Devon and Somerset) decided to employ at a vast salary ex-SWRDA senior manager Chris Garcia – who is so beloved of our LEP that they raised his salary 26% last year!

However, he will perhaps be miffed that the job of CEO of the CEOs of all these LEPs has not gone to him but to Rozz Algar, a former Human Resources Manager:
http://herne.org.uk/pages/about-us/rozz-algar-cmgr-fcmi/101

Want to know what this “super” LEP is planning for us? Go to their NEW (riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes – OWL has spotted SIX spelling mistakes on its home page alone!) website at:

http://greatsouthwest.org.uk/

And hear LEP-speak like you’ve never heard it before! Including that old chestnut about how many hospitals it COULD (but won’t) build!

“AN INTRODUCTION TO GREAT SOUTH WEST?
[Yes there really IS a question mark at the end of that heading!!!]

The South West of England is a great place. It is poised for a step change in prospertiy and productivity. When the productivity in the South West of England matches that currently in the South East we will add over £18bn a year to the UK’s economy. That’s enough to build a new NHS hospital every week.

Our economy is already bigger than that of Manchester and more than two and a half times that of Birmingham – with the single largest infrastructure project in Europe already underway (generating billions of pounds of business opportunities) and the best natural capital in the country (attracting more visitors than anywhere else outside London).
[Just in case you don’t realise it, they are talking about Hinkley C nuclear power plant – that great white elephant in North Somerset]

The pubication of the SW Growth Charter in 2016 started our journey to promote our great region and we welcome the continuing support of stakeholders across the region to hlep in shaping our opportunities and building the momentum.

Our strategy for greater prosperity is to collaborate to promote

a self-sustaining and resillient South West ….
with innovation, enterprise and infrastructure ….
with productive people and rewarding careers …
utilising our natural and entreprenurial capital …
and sharing the benefits for all

We are focused towards having a clear and consistent strategy in time for the Autumn Statement.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN PRACTICE?

Great South West looks to build on existing good practice and collaborative working such as the science and innovation audit

By working together as a region will ensure that the South West has a strong voice to highlight investment opportunities to national and international private and public investors; as well as projecting a positive and progressive image for all

It will help to support the economic growth and prosperity of the whole region by linking up programmes and ensuring that the asks and priorities are consistent and reflect the strengths of the region

The Great Southwest does not intend to impede individuals or groups from their own initiatives or joining with others. We will not be a bureaucracy; but look to support and add value where it can.

It aims to support a flourishing private sector and a highly skilled population able to make the most of the great opportunities that the South West has to offer

Note: The name Great South West is a working title at present and may alter as the intiative gains momentum in order to be appropriate and resonate with all parties. This is not a brand used by the West of England LEP for their local authority areas.”

Yep, all on the back of Brexit!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Minority Government, Scrutiny, Sleaze

Politics and life or death

The head of the Fire Brigade Union at the Labour Conference:

“They say don’t politicise Grenfell Tower, and we’ve not tried to politicise Grenfell Tower. But the truth is that actually when we examine this, and we do that, we’re already doing that, we will find – and any serious inquiry if it is genuine will find – that what led to the situation whereby Grenfell Tower could happen is a whole series of decisions, decisions that go back probably 30 years in reality, that go back over those three and a half decades.

“Decisions that altered the safety regime. Decisions that altered the housing regime. Decisions that altered inspection regimes and enforcement regimes.

“A process of deregulation and supposedly cutting red tape, where the previous Prime Minister David Cameron described health and safety as a ‘monster that should be slain.’ This is the language we’ve had off these people in power.” “And it is political decisions that have created the regime whereby Grenfell Tower, that atrocity, could happen.

“So there is no getting away from the fact that it is a political matter and we shouldn’t be afraid of saying it is a political matter.

Echoing Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s controversial claim that Grenfell victims were “murdered by political decisions”, Mr Wrack said: “They’re decisions and decisions are made by politicians. So by definition they are political decisions.

“To me it is a national political scandal. It is the sort of the scandal on which governments should fall, by the way.”

Mr Wrack said only London’s fire service was big enough to be able to give the level of cover needed to fight the fire.

“Plymouth has tower blocks that failed the tests” for flammable building cladding, he said. “They have night duties when they have 18 firefighters on duty.”

Turning to the inquiry, he added: “If we conclude, and if representatives of the residents and survivors and bereaved conclude, that the whole thing is a pointless stitch-up, then actually we may conclude that we’re going to walk away and boycott that inquiry.

“I hope it doesn’t happen but I think we need to tell the inquiry people that that’s where we stand.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/grenfell-tower-fire-crime-should-11237179

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality, Minority Government, NHS (local), Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

The “free market” PM shows how it’s done

As the article says: The NHS spends 1.02% of its budget on agency staff where the Cabinet Office has spent nearer 8% of its budget on such staff. But that is a mere drop in the ocean … read on …

“While all eyes were on the Labour Party conference, Theresa May’s Cabinet Office (CO) quietly published its accounts. And buried in the 114 pages was the fact that it spent a whopping £43.8m on agency staff in 2016/17.

But this was just the tip of a half a billion pound spending iceberg – with the CO blowing £8.86m on staff perks, and even giving [pdf, p89] former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg £114,982 from the public purse. …

Excruciating figures

Some of the most notable spending compared to 2015/16 was:

£43.8m on agency staff, up 54%.
£2.47m on staff “termination benefits” when they left the CO, up 162%.
£8.86m on staff travel, food and “hospitality”, up 63%.
£196.8m on total staff costs, up 20%.
£50.2m on Police and Crime Commissioner elections.
£1.54m on Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts, up 387%.
£21.7m on renting buildings, up 38%.
Writing off £2.3m of “bad debt”, up 5,342%.

But the £43.8m spent on agency staff (7.8% of the CO’s entire budget) does not tell the whole story. Because another set of CO figures reveals that it only employed 299 agency, interim, or consultant staff in 2016/17. Meaning the average cost of one of these, including agency fees, was £146,488.

The CO spent, overall, £558.58m in 2016/17; down £1.24m or 0.22% on 2015/16. The spending increases listed above were mostly offset by savings from not having the cost of a general election, reductions in pension costs, and less being paid out for “professional services”.

But delve a little deeper into the figures and some of the CO spending is even more questionable.

Nudging paper

The full CO accounts reveal that it paid out [pdf, p89] £538,067 in total to all living former Prime Ministers as “public duty costs”. But this also included £114,982 to former Deputy PM Clegg; a 12.8% increase on his payment in 2015/16.

The CO has [pdf, p99] £210.6m worth of agreements with private contractors to pay out over the course of their durations. It also holds [pdf, p101] £64m of investments in six private companies that operate within the public sector/government. One of these is Behavioural Insights Ltd, also known as the controversial ‘Nudge Unit’. As writer Sue Jones noted in 2015, the Nudge Unit is:

aimed at ‘changing the behaviours’ of citizens perceived to ‘make the wrong choices’ – ultimately the presented political aim is to mend Britain’s supposedly ‘broken society’ and to restore a country that ‘lives within its means’, according to a narrow, elitist view, bringing about a neoliberal utopia built on ‘economic competitiveness’ in a ‘global race’.
The Canary approached the CO for comment on its accounts, but at the time of publication had not received a response.

May’s money for nothing

John Manzoni, Chief Executive of the Civil Service, said [pdf, p9] in his introduction to the CO accounts that:

This year the Cabinet Office celebrated 100 years… ensuring that government works efficiently and effectively for citizens across the UK.
Manzoni’s hopes of the CO “ensuring efficiency” are laughable, at best, when you have a government department that happily spends £43.8m on agency staff and nearly £9m on ‘perks’ for its employees.

But the CO’s seemingly frivolous spending should contrast with other government departments. Because during 2016/17, the DWP cut Personal Independence Payments (PIP) for 164,000 people living with mental health issues. It reduced their payments from the enhanced to the standard rate, saving it £27.45 per person, per week. So, this saved the DWP £234m, or 0.11% of the welfare budget.

Also, the NHS spends around 1.02% of its budget on agency staff, but is criticised for doing so. So, when the CO claims “efficiency” but sees fit to spend 7.8% of its budget on agency staff, yet the DWP cuts crucial support from some of the poorest in society to save it a mere 0.11%, we have a truly broken government.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Democracy, EDDC, NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Sarah Randall Johnson, Scrutiny

Comments

2 Comments

Q: who does Diviani represent on the NHS? A: Jeremy Hunt

How does Owl know?

Well, he DOESN’T represent East Devon District Council – they told him to vote to keep local community hospital beds and maternity services open. He went to a DCC scrutiny meeting and voted to close them.

He DOESN’T represent the eight district councils he is supposed to represent at DCC [as a co-optee NOT a full member of the committee – and he was only allowed to vote because the badly-worded DCC constitution does not make the voting power of a co-optee clear] because he admitted in public that he did not consult any of the other councils before voting.

He DOESN’T represent DCC because he has not stood for election to that council and been successful.

WHAT was his reason/excuse/pathetic flim flam for his vote then?

That other attempts to refer the closure to the Secretary of State had failed, so this one would also fail.

How did he know that? Does he have a direct line to Hunt’s office or what passes for Hunt’s brain? He must have one or the other because he KNEW in advance what would happen and chose to vote on what he says he KNEW.

But if he KNEW what would happen (and he says he did) then why not vote as EDDC told him to do? The letter would have failed and he could still say he had voted as instructed at EDDC (though not as other councils wanted as he had no idea about that.

BUT – as he again admitted – it would have slowed down the closure. It would have given councils, the staff and supporters of the hospitals, the patients and their carers, more time to put alternative plans into action. More home care staff, more suitable plans for hospital buildings, better care for patients at home.

He did none of these things. He and Sarah Randall-Johnson consigned community hospitals to the rubbish heap.

And all because, he says, he knew what Jeremy Hunt would do.

So, now we know, he has a direct line to Jeremy Hunt and does what Jeremy Hunt wants him to do.

But why? Owl can only guess that he wants a gong from this despicable government to add to his only other qualification – an innkeepers certificate.

And the only way to do that is do the bidding of those who hand them out.

And if that isn”t his rationale, Owl would welcome a comment from him which would be published on the blog in full.

And what of his “representation” of the other councils? Who voted for him to be their representative? Was there a vote at all?

Or conversations in dark corners of County Hall?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Claire Wright, Consultation, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), Martin Shaw (Seaton), NHS (local), Phil Twiss, Sarah Randall Johnson, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

3 Comments

“Tories block recording concerns over biggest ever planned health service cuts in Devon”

Oh, how different it will be if (when) Tories lose control of DCC. We will then hear Twiss and his party colleagues saying EXACTLY what Claire Wright is saying!

Party politics sucks. More Independents needed – urgently.

From the blog of Claire Wright:

“.. And the County Solicitor will be called to address the committee to remind it of its responsibilities.

Devon County Council conservatives blocked my proposal yesterday to record significant concerns over the biggest cuts facing Devon’s health service in living memory.

Sonja Manton from NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group gave an update on the plans to slash around £500m by 2020, as part of Devon’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP).

The county’s STP is one of 44 across the country and is the government’s main programme of major cost cutting and centralisation in the NHS, to stem a £30bn shortfall by 2020.

I asked a number of questions mainly on staffing, budgets and buildings, along the following lines:

What are the vacancies and how do you plan to fill them and when do you plan to make redundancies (which has been previously hinted at)?

The answer was woolly (and no amount of pushing would encourage Dr Manton to reveal more). It contained no information on numbers, but she did mention that there is a 30 per cent turnover rate across Devon, in home care staff and that 75 per cent of the NHS budget is spent on staffing.

Next I asked whether pregnant women would still have a genuine choice where to give birth, as three community maternity units at Okehampton, Tiverton and Honiton were set to close (two have already closed temporarily due to staffing issues).

The answer was that the new service would meet national guidelines, so I pushed and asked whether pregnant women would be able to have a choice of a midwife led unit and how far they would have to travel. The answer was that there will be a new midwife led unit at the RD&E, adjacent to the consultant led unit.

So essentially women from all over Devon will soon have to either have a home birth, or travel to Exeter to give birth, whether that’s at a midwife led unit or a consultant led unit. There was a bit of a disagreement about me saying the current midwife led units were closed, despite the announcement having already been announced that this was the intention and two being temporarily closed due to staffing pressures.

Next I asked how many more beds were planned to be cut.

More prevarication.

I pushed. Was the figure of 600 bed cuts recognised, which was the broad figure in the first draft of the STP?

Yes this figure was recognised but it depended on a raft of issues.

Finally, I asked about the selling off of redundant estate. How many, where and when? Another non answer ensued. It was the next piece of work.

Entirely frustrated at the refusal to answer questions, not because I believe, the answers are not known but because there is a total refusal to get into any detail whatsoever, I expressed my complete frustration and disappointment at the answers. It made no difference.

Other councillors asked other questions.

At the end of the debate I proposed a resolution that the committee express significant concerns over the STP, its potential effect on patient care and the lack of transparency so far.

I called for urgent information on staffing, beds, buildings and budgets, in particular.

The proposal was seconded by Chair, Sara Randall Johnson, who added that a piece of work would be done on this.

Unfortunately, my wording appeared to upset the conservative group. Cllr Philip Sanders said he didn’t like that I had said the process appeared not to be transparent and wanted this word deleted. I replied that that it was entirely justified and refused to amend my proposal.

But fellow Conservative, Phil Twiss, wanted ANY mention of concerns deleted.

He said: “We don’t need the emotional language.”

Three years ago, Cllr Twiss reported me and this blog to the police cyber crime unit. You can read about it here, if you like – http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/eddc_tory_whip_reports_me_to_the_police_for_a_comment_on_this_blog

Cllr Twiss then proposed that ALL my words were deleted, simply retaining the section that relating to a task group being set up.

This was voted through by the vast majority of the Conservative group.

Letting down every single resident in Devon who relies on the NHS.

Yes, I think that’s everyone.

Ambulance Trust response targets are failing and RD&E unable to discharge its patients in good time

Later in the meeting we were examining the performance review.

The South West Ambulance Trust which used to meet the national target of eight minutes largely without a difficulty, are now significantly under target. Only 59 per cent of calls were answered within eight minutes, across Northern, Eastern and Western Devon, in July of this year. The target is 75 per cent.

Lives are surely being put at risk. Certainly news of the failures are hitting the local media.

The narrative attached to the graph claimed that the reason was the rural nature of the South West. Yet the South West has been rural for years and this wasn’t a problem previously. Of course there have been cuts to budgets, and reductions in the number of ambulances so that is more likely to be the cause of the failure.

Problem with delayed discharges at the RD&E

Similarly, the RD&E was shown to have a significant problem with delayed discharges.

In June this year a daily average of 66 beds were occupied by patients who were well enough to go home.

It was obvious from the graph that the problem was clearly way out of kilter with other local NHS trusts.

This was largely to do with major staffing problems in the care sector, an officer confirmed.

of course it is these staff among others that we will rely on, to look after people in their own homes following community hospital bed cuts.

I proposed a resolution that the committee record its concerns at the ambulance response rates and the high level of delayed discharges at the RD&E and invite both trusts to the next committee meeting.

I had to argue with the chair that the proposal should retain the bit about recording concerns, before it was seconded by Cllr Brian Greenslade.

One of the Labour councillors was unhappy with me mentioning the RD&E at all in my resolution because she was chairing a piece of work looking at delayed discharges. I tried to point out that the resolution supported her work but she was adamant …

Then Cllr Twiss started up again. He said he didn’t like my wording and that I was simply making a statement that “looks good in the press.”

I reminded Cllr Twiss that the committee is legally constituted to scrutinise health services on behalf of the people and our job is to hold the health service to account. In fact such words had been used recently in a standards committee hearing minutes.

Anyone who is familiar with the basic requirements of an audit trail will recognise the importance of the committee recording concerns about service failures in this way.

I told Cllr Twiss that I intended to ask in the work programme agenda item, that the county solicitor attends the next committee meeting and outlines our responsibilities.

The final amendment removed my words about concerns about the RD&E’s delayed discharges but retained the words about the ambulance trust target failure.

So Ambulance Trust representatives will be invited to the next meeting.

I have certainly heard anecdotally that things are very challenging indeed within the Trust, with too few ambulances and low staff morale.

I duly asked in the final agenda item for the County Solicitor to attend the next meeting to remind the committee of its remit.

Some councillors appear to be in sore need of training.

Playing political games with health scrutiny resolutions is a dirty and unacceptable game.

NHS Property Services and buildings

Cllr Martin Shaw spoke to a report he submitted to the committee on this. The upshot will be that a sub group will examine the future of community hospital buildings.

The speaker itemised webcast can be viewed here – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/301904”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/tories_block_recording_concerns_over_biggest_ever_planned_health_service_cu

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Scrutiny

“Ministry of Defence spent £64,000 on internet usage for ONE phone last year, new figures reveal”

Was that person even on earth?!!!

“The Ministry of Defence spent £64,000 on mobile internet use for a single phone last year, new figures have revealed.

The hefty bill was the most expensive in a list of staggering figures which the Government department paid out enable its staff to stay in touch while abroad.

The MoD forked out an eye-watering £324,407 to pay for the data roaming charges for the ten most expensive mobile phones bills alone. …

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4909440/MoD-spent-64-000-internet-usage-phone-year.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, East Devon Alliance, Health and Social Care (local), Martin Shaw (Seaton), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

EDA DCC Councillor Martin Shaw asks council to scrutinise ownership and governance of community hospitals

PRESS RELEASE from DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (Seaton and Colyton):

“Tomorrow I am asking the committee to consider a proposal on ‘Ownership, Community Stakeholding and the Governance of Community Hospitals’, the briefing note for which is copied below and is self-explanatory:

Ownership, Community Stakeholding and the Governance of Community Hospitals

Community hospitals in Devon have always been built and maintained with a high degree of community involvement and support. In many cases, local communities took the initiative to build the hospitals and raised a substantial part of the original funding, or even the entire funding of additional wings and facilities, as well as contributing to staff and other running costs, the introduction of new specialist services, etc.

Unlike Private Finance Initiatives undertaken in partnership with private companies, these ‘community finance initiatives’ – which sought no profit from their investments other than the improvement of the facilities and services they enabled – appear not to have secured their interests in the hospitals they helped to build. The Leagues of Friends and others who raised funds for hospitals trusted that their investments would continue to be used for the benefit of place-based health services in their local area.

Since the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, however, the organisation of the NHS has changed and the ownership of NHS buildings is in the process of being transferred to a new company, NHS Property Services, wholly owned by the Secretary of State and charged with managing the NHS estate in line with national priorities. NHS Property Services is enabled to sell off parts of the estate and to charge NHS organisations market rents for their use of NHS buildings.

This change creates dilemmas for local communities which have invested in Devon community hospitals. Clearly Leagues of Friends and other local bodies, including town and parish councils as representatives of communities which have raised large amounts of funding, can be considered ‘stakeholders’ in community hospitals. However these community stakeholders appear not to possess formal rights in the ownership and governance of the hospitals.

The proposal is that the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny undertake an investigation into

1. The changing ownership and governance of community hospitals in Devon and its implications.
2. The historic and ongoing contributions of local communities and Leagues of Friends to funding the hospitals.
The purpose of this investigation would be to address the question of
3. How community stakeholders’ interests should be secured in the future governance of community hospitals.

It is envisaged that in the course of this investigation, the Committee would both collect evidence and invite expressions of views from all stakeholders, including both local community organisations and NHS bodies, including NHS Property Services.

Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset Management Group, EDDC, EDDC HQ, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Scrutiny, SWAP (EDDC internal audit)

Council’s £1 million overspend investigated; our council’s multimillion overspend on new HQ not investigated!

OUR council has already spent nearly that much on its satellite HQ in Exmouth. The Honiton HQ was supposed to be cost neutral with the proceeds of the £7 Knowle sale to PegasusLife but latest estimates (some while ago and not adjusted for post-Brexit soaring costs) was around £10 million.

How come SWAP could do this in Herefordshire but not in East Devon. Or why KPMG – its new auditors – are not doing it now?

“A special investigation into how the costs of establishing a joint customer services hub in a refurbished building soared from £950,000 to more than £1.9m has found evidence that officers “knowingly disregarded council process and procedures”.

The investigation into the Blueschool House refurbishment was carried out by the South West Audit Partnership for Herefordshire Council. The local authority has been working with the Department of Work and Pensions on the project. Have we ever seen the (updated) business case for the new HQ?

The business case for the hub was approved by the council’s Director of Resources on 13 May 2016 and the key decision taken on 2 June 2016 was approved by the Cabinet Member Contracts and Assets.

The SWAP report said: “Overall the council’s normal governance processes have not been followed by key officers involved in the Blueschool House refurbishment.

The key decision did follow the correct governance process however the business case to support the key decision lacked clarity over what works would be included in the £950K agreed financial envelope.

“It would appear that key staff including senior officers at Director level were aware of the council processes and procedures but these have not been applied during this project and there is evidence that officers have knowingly disregarded council process and procedure.”

The investigation found that although there were early indications from the framework provider that the project could not be delivered within the financial envelope even with value engineering, key officers failed to report this to Cabinet.

The report also said:

The rationale for the selection of the contractor could not be demonstrated as there were no records to support this. The property services team had responded to client requests without providing robust challenge, and had not followed the council procedure rules in relation to procurement.

The relationship between the property services team and contractors appeared to be informal for a capital project of this value and throughout the project there was little evidence that value for money could be demonstrated.

In line with the capital guidance, major projects should be overseen by a project board. The Accommodation Programme Board had oversight of the overall accommodation strategy until November 2016 however, there was no project board for the Blueschool House refurbishment project.

The timescale of the project was identified as a major risk in the business case as the project was subject to a time constraint pressure due to the DWP serving notice on their current property. This was a key factor in ensuring the project was progressed and had contributed to the overall poor governance.

The SWAP report said it was “for management to consider and determine whether any further action such as disciplinary action, should be taken against individual officers as it is clear there has been disregard for processes and procedures which has resulted in a significant overspend on the project”.

The report was due to be considered by the council’s audit and governance committee at a meeting this week (20 September).”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php