Category Archives: Scrutiny

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Standards Committee, Voting

“I feel sorry for the people of Tatton – I hear their MP is just too busy to care”

The above quote from Labour MP, Jess Phillips.

But why only Tatton?

Here in Devon we have our own Hugo Swire who, after telling us all how sorry he was not to be able to speak for us when he worked at the Foreign Office but then, when sacked by Mrs May, immediately took the post of Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council.

We also have Conservative West Devon and Torridge MP Geoffrey Cox – in whose area the North Devon District Hospital is under threat of closure – who has to juggle his constituency problems with being a successful barrister. According to the Daily Telegraph, based on the declarations in the register of members’ interests, his extra-parliamentary work was worth £820,867 in 2014 or 12 times his annual MP salary. Not to mention his little problem with an alleged tax avoidance scheme.

And Owl is sure there are many many more MPs with their snouts in many conflicting job troughs – and other conflicts – for example those with large shareholdings in private health care companies.

But people vote for them again and again.

As Ms Phillips says:

“The column I wrote last week about how the ex-chancellor was treating being an MP as a hobby after the announcement of his one-day-a-week £650,000 job working for BlackRock Investments is not even in the recycling yet (thanks to years of austerity cutting the collections). Yet, just days later, he’s acquired another job he is apparently going to do on the other four days a week. Next week you can look forward to my column announcing that Osborne has a Saturday job presenting Match of the Day and a Sunday job in the clergy. He is as qualified for those jobs as he is to be the editor of the Evening Standard.

The conflicts of interest are so numerous that my brain has no time to think of them before another pops up. I shall try to devise a list as an aide-memoire for the similarly baffled. It is not OK for politicians to be the editors of newspapers. Not in the UK at least. It’s all the rage in Russia, which is perhaps why the Standard’s proprietor, Evgeny Lebedev, thought nothing of it. No one who read the Evening Standard’s coverage of the London mayoral race would be surprised that it is of the Tory persuasion. It showed then that it was a fan of a rich boy with no talent by supporting Zac “God loves a trier” Goldsmith.

People might think it’s no biggy, it’s not the BBC, it doesn’t have to be neutral. No, it doesn’t, but it does have to at least make some commitment to reporting facts and holding to account those in positions of power. How can George Osborne ever be trusted to do this?

At the moment, when the press is getting a global drubbing from people shrieking “fake news”, how will we be able to trust anything the Standard says? For all those hard-working news reporters and political journalists fighting to be trusted and maintain an important part of our democracy, this is a smack in the face. As pravda means truth in Russian, anything political written in the Standard must now be judged as equally “true”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/george-osborne-editor-evening-standard-constituents

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Scrutiny, Voting

Election spending (2) … just to make it crystal clear where the buck stops

“Managing campaign spending

Authorising and paying campaign spending

Only the ‘responsible person’ registered with us and people authorised in writing by the responsible person can incur campaign spending.

For example, someone may be authorised to spend money on particular items, or up to a particular amount.

These rules are in place to make sure that spending can be controlled and accurately recorded and reported.

You should make sure that your volunteers and campaigners know who can and cannot incur costs.”

Click to access to-campaign-spend-rp.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, General Election, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Comments on record fine for Conservative expenses scandal

“… Four aspects of this record fine are worth noting, especially in terms of what it means for forthcoming decisions on legal action against more Conservative MPs than makes up Theresa May’s majority in the House of Commons.

In short – it’s bad news for the Conservatives as the Electoral Commission has found repeated evidence of spending missing from constituency expense returns. That’s with the police, who have started interviewing MPs under caution, and the Crown Prosecution Service, which has received files from a dozen police forces now.

1. Conservative Party repeatedly hindered the Electoral Commission

The Conservative Party repeatedly refused to cooperate fully with the Electoral Commission investigation, requiring the Commission to go to court to get access to relevant evidence. Even after that, two further legal notices were issued in response to the party failing to provide information requested. The Electoral Commission also had to issue a legal order against a Conservative Party campaigner who “had chosen not to provide information voluntarily”.

“The Party hindered and caused delay to the investigation”, the Electoral Commission’s report concludes. This is notable different from its conclusions on other parties it has investigated recently, where cooperation was forthcoming and sustained.

2. When parties split costs, they must keep good evidence

It is a normal and legal part of election expenditure to split some costs between different legal areas. For example, a leaflet might both promote a local election candidate and a general election candidate and as a result its costs are split between the two candidate’s different expense limits.

One area where the Electoral Commission found against the Conservative Party was over its splitting of staff costs where staff were located in a constituency at the time of a by-election but were also continuing with their normal party roles as well as helping on the by-election.

“The Party could provide no record of how those proportions were determined for any of the by-elections. It did not have any written record of the formula at all, either generally or in relation to any of the three by-elections,” the Electoral Commission reports.

3. Police investigations into Conservative MPs are continuing

As the Electoral Commission’s report says, “The Commission does not have specific powers to investigate and enforce incomplete candidate returns”. The fines and police referral by the Electoral Commission are all about national record keeping and expense limit compliance, not what MPs and their agents got up to.

4. Electoral Commission’s conclusions worsen the legal risk faced by Conservative MPs

All the accommodation costs for national staff relocated to constituencies during three Parliamentary by-elections which the Electoral Commission investigated should have been included in local constituency returns even if the staff were spending some of their time on non-constituency campaigning.

That’s because otherwise they would have been based in their normal offices without accommodation being paid: “There is no reason the Commission can see as to why only an unspecified proportion of the accommodation costs for staff was included in the invoices to candidates. The Commission is satisfied that the entire accommodation costs, for staff and volunteers, were incurred for the purpose of basing individuals in Newark, Clacton and Rochester and Strood, to facilitate those individuals’ work on the respective by-election campaigns. This money would not have been spent otherwise.”

Moreover, when it comes to the Thanet South general election contest, the Electoral Commission has concluded that some of the expenses put on the party’s national expense return should have been included in the constituency return instead as they were for constituency campaigning: “The Commission is satisfied that a proportion of the costs included in the Party’s campaign spending return associated with the team based in South Thanet did not relate to Party campaign spending and should not have been included in the Party’s spending return. In particular, a proportion of the £15,641 included in the Party’s 2015 UKPGE spending return in relation to the Royal Harbour Hotel constituted candidate campaign expenses and should not have been included in the return.”

Likewise on the Conservative battlebus tour, the Electoral Commission has found that the Conservative Party wrongly claimed that all its costs were national election expenditure because in reality the battlebus operation often promoted constituency candidates and so a proportion of its costs should have counted against their limits.

Because the Electoral Commission doesn’t have direct jurisdiction over constituency returns, the question therefore of under-declaring costs on constituency returns has not been followed up by them in this report. That, however, is a matter for the ongoing police investigations. For example, on the question of the Conservative battlebus, the Electoral Commission concludes: “The Commission has not sought to identify the extent to which any affected candidates may have underreported their campaign spending, which is an RPA [Representation of the People Act] matter and therefore a matter for the police.”

In other words, the Electoral Commission has found a number of issues which directly mean that constituency expense returns were wrong. They haven’t issued fines or taken other action over them as those matters are with the police.”

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148784/conserative-party-electoral-commission-fine/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Neighbourhood Plans, Planning System, Scrutiny, Transparency

When planning goes horribly wrong

“The family of a businessman who helped shape the future of development in South Devon are set to make hundreds of thousands of pounds after a plot they bought at a knock-down price was designated for housing. Paignton residents have expressed concerns over the future of the land in Waterside Road.

They are unhappy that the space, which backs onto Dartmouth Road, has been cleared of trees and identified for housing in the latest draft of the Brixham Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan.

The land is owned by the family of the neighbourhood plan forum’s vice-chair Adam Billings and was bought at auction from Torbay Council as amenity land in 2014.

Neighbours say the plot would have generated far more money for the taxpayer if it has been sold with planning permission rather being designed to be a green space.

Mr Billings did not wish to comment on the plans for the land but hit out at ‘factually incorrect claims’ that had been made about his actions. He declared an interest in the land during the neighbourhood plan process. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/residents-concern-over-potential-development-of-green-land/story-30203442-detail/story.html

Recall EDDC’s senior planner recently wrote to councillors suggesting that if they had any development land hidden away now was the time to bring it forward!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny, Transparency

Will Swire do the right thing and fire his wife? Or will she do the right thing and resign?

“MPs will be banned from hiring relatives using public money after the next general election, according to new rules issued by the expenses watchdog.

The new rules, released on Wednesday, state that no new “connected parties” can be employed in politicians’ offices. Members of MPs’ families who are already employed will be allowed to continue to work in their offices, despite widespread criticism of the practice.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it would not force MPs to sack individuals who are currently working for them.

The rule change was released following a comprehensive consultation of MPs’ business costs and expenses. It comes amid the scandal in France over allegations that presidential candidate François Fillon paid his wife hundreds of thousands of pounds for little work.

Ipsa’s senior officials have argued that the employment of “connected parties” is out of step with modern employment practice, which requires fair and open recruitment to encourage diversity in the workplace.

Pay for MPs’ relatives costs the public purse around £4m a year, and around 150 are currently on the payroll.

Employing relatives is one of the most controversial practices still allowed under the changed expenses rules….

… MPs will be banned from hiring relatives using public money after the next general election, according to new rules issued by the expenses watchdog.

The new rules, released on Wednesday, state that no new “connected parties” can be employed in politicians’ offices. Members of MPs’ families who are already employed will be allowed to continue to work in their offices, despite widespread criticism of the practice.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it would not force MPs to sack individuals who are currently working for them.

The rule change was released following a comprehensive consultation of MPs’ business costs and expenses. It comes amid the scandal in France over allegations that presidential candidate François Fillon paid his wife hundreds of thousands of pounds for little work.

Ipsa’s senior officials have argued that the employment of “connected parties” is out of step with modern employment practice, which requires fair and open recruitment to encourage diversity in the workplace.

Pay for MPs’ relatives costs the public purse around £4m a year, and around 150 are currently on the payroll.

Employing relatives is one of the most controversial practices still allowed under the changed expenses rules.

In 2009, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended a ban on the practice as it was “not consistent with modern employment practice designed to ensure fairness in recruitment, management of staff and remuneration”.

Proposals to ban family members from working for MPs following parliament’s expenses scandal were dropped by Ipsa after a backlash from politicians – with the caveat that they were restricted to putting just one family member on the payroll.

MPs who have employed family members include the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, and the Conservative MP Johnny Mercer, who employs his wife, Felicity.

Many MPs say their relatives are willing to work much longer hours than they could ask of other staff. They believe the practice helps them maintain a family life amid the long hours and pressures of Westminster.

A report by the watchdog earlier this year revealed that the pay of connected parties is on average £5,600 higher than that of other staff, and going up at twice the rate of other staff in parliament. At the time of the last general election, relatives’ average salary was £31,350 a year.

Ipsa has said controls to prevent misuse of public funds in payments to family members are “limited”. There is no central time-keeping system for MPs’ staff, and MPs are responsible for monitoring and paying overtime.

Ipsa said it was “difficult to discover whether MPs are breaking the rules” and said there was a risk MPs could break the rules or “act fraudulently without detection”.

It added: ‘The quality of our data records and the absence of controls to prevent false declarations of connected party status means that there is a high risk that any instance of an undeclared or inaccurate status will not be identified.’

Between 2010 and 2015 the cost of employing MPs’ relatives was about £21m.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/15/mps-to-be-banned-from-using-public-money-to-hire-relatives-expenses

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Police (local), Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Election expenses scandal: some Tory MPs in panic mode

Our current Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez, was election agent for MP Kevin Foster [Torbay] who took the seat from Lib Dems with a majority of 3,286 at the last election with just over 40% of voters choosing him.

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2017-01-04/police-chief-interviewed-over-election-expenses-scandal/

“A Conservative MP has been interviewed under caution as part of an ongoing police inquiry into whether the party overspent in its campaign for South Thanet in the 2015 general election, when they were up against Nigel Farage.

Craig Mackinlay, the MP who won the seat against the former Ukip leader, is said to have spent about six hours speaking to police about their investigation, which has been going on for about a year.

Asked about the interview, a Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.” Mackinlay did not reply to a request for comment.

There is growing panic in the Conservative party about the scale of police probes into election spending, which could affect dozens of MPs. A separate investigation by the Electoral Commission into whether the national party broke election spending limits is also under way and expected to come to a head within weeks.

The allegations, first uncovered by Channel 4 News, are that spending in marginal seats on a battlebus tour and teams of party officials was wrongly recorded as national, rather than local spending.

The penalties for wrongly declaring local elections are steep, with possible criminal charges for MPs and their election agents, and results can be declared void.

It is understood police could meet the Crown Prosecution Service as early as 21 March to discuss bringing a possible charge in relation to South Thanet, where Farage was narrowly beaten by Mackinley.

Nigel Farage says he would stand for election again in South Thanet
Farage, the former Ukip leader, has already said he may be interested in rerunning in the Kent coastal seat if it there were to be a prosecution and byelection.

Kent police said: “The investigation into this complex matter is ongoing and officers continue to follow lines of enquiry. Therefore it would not be appropriate to comment further.

“Officers from Kent police continue to work with the Electoral Commission as the investigation continues.”

Separately, a group of Conservative MPs under investigation over their election expenses are growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of support from the party’s headquarters.

One has sent an email to Tory HQ accusing the party of keeping secret a draft of the Electoral Commission report from MPs whose local spending returns are under investigation.

In an email seen by Sky News, Karl McCartney, a Tory MP [Lincoln] under investigation who is helping other MPs, accused party officials of trying to save themselves rather than help those who were elected.

He wrote that his colleagues “feel completely cast adrift by CCHQ/whips/the parliamentary party and left to fend for themselves”.

He added: “At what stage do you think you (the party) might inform us that another media s***storm is coming? We didn’t create this mess, the clever dicks at CCHQ did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media much.”

“The initial cock-ups, ‘strategy’ and ineptitude with regard to this issue that has so negatively impacted our: lives, standing in our communities, standing amongst colleagues, families and our regard for particular parts of the party centrally, and were all of CCHQ’s making … need to stop.

“We are the ones who are now (and since the beginning as individuals have been) in the media spotlight and it might have been a little more reassuring and collegiate if the powers that be in our party perhaps tried to be a little bit more supportive and less interested in covering their own backsides.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/14/conservative-mp-craig-mackinlay-interviewed-under-caution-over-election-spending

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Economy, Exmouth, Golden Quadrangle LEP, Golden Triangle LEP, Hinkley C, Inequality, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Enterprise Partnership, Regeneration, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Big Society” a big failure says Parliamentary Committee: £1 billion plus wasted

Owl says: Vanity projects – imagine how much we could spend on necessities if they were all abandoned! Hinkley C, HS2, the Big Society, EDDC relocation, Exmouth “regeneration”, Devon and Somerset devolution …!

“A publicly funded £1bn “big society” project set up by former prime minister David Cameron to restore values of responsibility and discipline among young people has been criticised by MPs for lax spending controls and poor management.

The Commons public accounts committee (PAC) said the National Citizen Service (NCS) trust lacked appropriate governance arrangements, could not justify its high costs, and was unable to prove whether its courses had any long-term impact on youngsters.

Meg Hillier MP, chair of the PAC, said: “We urge the trust and central government to review fundamentally the way NCS is delivered and its benefits measured before more public money is committed in the programme’s next commissioning round.”

MPs said that the scheme – which has received £600m in government funding since 2011 and stands to get another £900m investment over the next two years – should be “fundamentally reviewed” by ministers.

Hillier said although there was some evidence the scheme had a short-term positive impact on participants this did not in itself justify the high level of public spending on the programme, nor demonstrate that it would deliver the proposed benefits.

The PAC report criticised the trust for refusing to disclose directors’ salaries, and accused it of a “lack of discipline” after failing to recover £10m paid to providers for unfilled places. It concluded that it was unclear whether the trust management had the necessary skills and experience to run the scheme. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/14/national-citizens-service-justify-costs–commons-committee-cameron

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze

Comments

1 Comment

Daily Mail tells Tories to stop playing politics with public trust!!!

Owl says now I’ve heard everything! This could be straight out of Socialist Worker (Middle Class Branch)!

“… It was less than two years ago that the Conservatives went to the polls on a promise, spelled out four times in their manifesto: ‘We will not raise VAT, National Insurance contributions or Income Tax.’

In that now discredited, apparently worthless document, there was no suggestion the pledge referred only to Class 1 NICs (how many voters even knew there were four classes?)

Yet this was the devious excuse offered after the Chancellor increased the rate for Class 4, costing 2.4million self-employed workers some £240 a year each – almost eight times the 60p-a-week ‘average’ he so disingenuously cited.

Not content with this betrayal of his party’s core supporters, he slashed the tax-free allowance on dividends from £5,000 to £2,000. Thus, he hammered family-owned businesses, freelance workers and every saver with stock market investments of more than £50,000.

Meanwhile, tax rises and changes to compensation payments are likely to add £75 a year to car insurance premiums.

But still Mr Hammond hadn’t finished. Having joked he would not exhume Labour’s death tax, he is now pushing through… a huge increase in death tax! …

… And now it emerges the Chancellor has another £700million trick up his sleeve. Complex changes in already baffling tax rules mean some shops and newsagents will see their VAT more than quadruple, while self-employed service-providers will also be hard hit.

So bang goes another pledge that helped sweep the Tories to power in 2015. Indeed, all parties seem to see manifestos merely as vote-winning exercises, to be forgotten once an election is won.

David Cameron is right about one thing. It is indeed ‘stupidity’ to break manifesto pledges. But then look who’s talking! He was the PM who shredded almost every core promise he made in 2010, from cutting migration to below 100,000 to scrapping the Human Rights Act.

Meanwhile, his shameless sidekick George Osborne is becoming a veritable Tony Blair, stuffing his boots with banknotes on the strength of contacts and experience gained in public office.

He even tried to bury news of his one-day-a-week, £650,000 job for a US investment company by sneaking it out on Budget day. No wonder politicians are held in growing contempt. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4303252/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Stop-playing-politics-public-trust.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCLG, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Surrey council received boost in budget after ‘sweetheart deal’ claims”

“Analysis by Labour shows that out of the £2bn of new money for social care in England announced in Wednesday’s budget, Surrey will see the biggest increase in the share of funding by the 2019/20 financial year.

The analysis says that Surrey will get 1.66% of the money, rising from 0.75% in 2017/18, an increase of 0.91 percentage points in the three-year period – more than double the increase of the second council, Hertfordshire.

Theresa May has repeatedly denied Surrey will receive any form of funding not available to other local authorities, after the council last month called off a planned referendum on increasing council tax by 15% to pay for what it said was a crisis in social care funding.

But soon after the postponement, leaked text messages about a supposed “memorandum of understanding” between the council and government prompted Jeremy Corbyn to accuse May of buying off Surrey with a special deal, which she denied.

The Labour leader reiterated the accusation this week after the release of an audio recording in which the council leader, David Hodge, told fellow Surrey Conservatives about a “gentleman’s agreement” with ministers.

Hodge revealed in the recording that there had been a “series of conversations” with the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, in a car outside Downing Street. That was followed by a second meeting with the chancellor, Philip Hammond, he said.

Later that day, documents released by Surrey under freedom of information rules showed Hammond was among a series of Surrey Conservative MPs who lobbied Javid over the issue.

A new set of correspondence released by Javid’s department shows that on the morning of 7 February, the day Hodge announced he was backing down from the referendum, frantic negotiations were still going on.

At 8.23am Surrey’s director of finance, Sheila Little, messaged Matthew Style, head of local government finance at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), one document showed.

“The leader [Hodge] has just shown me a note from a Surrey MP about a conversation late last night with SJ,” she wrote. SJ refers to Javid.

“Seems to indicate government are willing to get us some extra funding from 2018. V interested in whether this is sincere. As it stands isn’t enough to call the ref [referendum] off? But could it be?”

May’s official spokesman was adamant when asked whether the exchange indicated the prime minister might have misled the Commons over the issue. “No,” he said. “There is absolutely no change in our position.”

A DCLG note released with the freedom of information documents made the same point.

“Whilst the final settlement has yet to be approved, the government is not proposing extra funding to Surrey county council that is not otherwise provided or offered to other councils generally,” it read.

“There is no ‘memorandum of understanding’ between government and Surrey county council.”

However, Labour’s Teresa Pearce, the shadow communities secretary, said the analysis of the extra social care money showed ministers “are busy playing political games with funding allocations in a desperate attempt to hide their sweetheart deal”.

She said: “This week’s budget won’t fix the issues facing social care. What we need from the Tories is a long-term sustainable plan, rather than cosy deals for Tory councils.

“Theresa May has failed to come clean about the terms of the deal offered to Surrey, failed to apologise for her government’s misleading suggestion that there had been no such deal and would not give the assurance that other local councils will get the same treatment.”

Late on Friday night, Labour MP Andy Burnham tweeted that he would raise the question of whether the ministerial code had been broken.

A DCLG spokesman said: “To suggest that any local authority is being given preferential treatment is simply not true.

“The majority of the £2bn of additional funding for adult social care announced at the budget will be allocated in the same way as the Better Care Fund, ensuring those who can raise less through the social care precept benefit most. The remainder will be allocated according to relative need in recognition of the additional challenges which social care places on certain councils.

“This is entirely fair, transparent and consistent with how we already fund adult social care.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/10/surrey-council-received-boost-in-budget-after-sweetheart-deal-claims

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Exeter court case with ramifications for EDDC HQ relocation

“Exeter City Council’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that it should publish details of the business case for the controversial St Sidwell’s Point leisure complex on the current bus station site will be heard by an Information Tribunal.

Exeter resident Peter Cleasby used the Freedom of Information Act to ask the Council to release details of the business case for the development so that the assumptions contained in it – particularly about the running costs – could be open to wider scrutiny before contracts were signed.

The Council refused on grounds of commercial confidentiality, and Mr Cleasby complained about its refusal to the Information Commissioner.

The Commissioner ordered key information in the business case to be made public, but the Council appealed against the Commissioner’s decision.

The matter will now be decided by a judge-led Information Tribunal, in a public hearing at Exeter Magistrates Court on Monday 13 March starting at 10am.

Peter Cleasby said:”Exeter City Council is set to spend £26 million of public money – a sum that may well increase – on the leisure complex. It claims that the complex will make a profit, but only a handful of officers and councillors know what assumptions are made in support of these claims. If the Council get this wrong, the city could be saddled with an expensive liability for years to come, so wider scrutiny and challenge of the business case assumptions is vital.”

A City Council spokesman said: “The Council will make its case before the Tribunal. It would be inappropriate to comment further ahead of the hearing.”

The pool project was recently put on hold because the council had not appointed a contractor, despite having already spent a significant proportion of the £32.5million combined pot for St Sidwell’s Point and the bus station.”

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/exeter-city-council-taken-to-court-after-refusing-to-release-leisure-complex-details/story-30186062-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Business Rates, Corruption, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

Councils to administer a discretionary business rate relief fund

“Local authorities are to share a £300m pot for discretionary business rate reliefs to help firms facing higher bills due to next month’s revaluation of the levy, chancellor Philip Hammond has announced.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/03/councils-share-ps300m-business-rate-relief-fund

Question: How will this be monitored to ensure that officers and councillors do not favour their mates?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

How to make electoral registration easier (if your electoral registration officer plays fair)

Owl is not convinced that this government or even EDDC – wants a more inclusive electoral register – students were mostly against Brexit and they often vote for minority parties.

It will be interesting to see what efforts our electoral registration officer (CEO Mark Williams) will make to ensure that East Devon registers more voters – after the fiasco at the last election, where frantic efforts had to be made at the last-minute to find 6,000 voters who had dropped off the electoral roll due to changes in procedures authorised by Mr Williams but which very much displeased the parliamentary committee to which he was summoned to explain his unilateral changes.

“Before the Lords voted against Brexit yesterday in the House of Lords, the government was defeated on another important democratic issue: voter registration. This passed largely without comment by the media (and went unmentioned in the BBC’s Yesterday in Parliament, for example). It is unsurprising that voter registration rarely receives the same level of coverage as Brexit, but it is nonetheless a vital issue.

Up to 8 million people were thought to be missing from the electoral register in 2015. Research shows that citizens were turned away from the polls at the Brexit referendum because they were not registered to vote.

Registration levels have been declining for a long time. It was long forecasted that this decline would continue under individual electoral registration (IER). The introduction of online voter registration and voter outreach work from organisations such as Bite the Ballot did much to address this in the run-up to the EU referendum. But now the referendum is past, we should expect the completeness of the register to slide away again.

One group that research predicted would be hardest hit was students. Under the old household electoral registration system, they were automatically enrolled by their university administration. Although data on the number who have fallen off the register is hard to track, we know that young people were especially affected by IER. It was therefore a mistake that the Electoral Administration Act of 2013 did not provide for a suitable student registration to be put in place when the old system of household registration was abolished.

Yesterday, an amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill was introduced to require universities to offer students the opportunity to register to vote at the point of enrolment or re-registration as a student at their university. A successful example of a scheme like this was piloted at Sheffield University, where student registration rates soared to a quoted 76% of its eligible students registered, compared to 13% at similar-sized institutions. The amendment offers an opportunity to save significant funds too. The head of registration services at Sheffield Council has confirmed that the cost of registering a student with this model is just 12p, rather than £5. Cardiff Council calculates that using this scheme for combining enrolment with electoral registration has saved it some £63,000.

The amendment was passed, against the government, by a majority of 200 to 189.

Beyond students: towards a more inclusive democracy

The principle behind the amendment is a simple and powerful one. Make voter registration easy and convenient and more people will register. If you combine registration with other administrative jobs, such as paying council tax or renewing a driving licence, the paperwork-adverse citizen will be more likely to complete it. It is important that measures therefore go beyond supporting student registration and that the idea is extended to other public services to engage the wider public.

There is a powerful research and international practice to suggest that this works. In the US, a federal Act was passed in the 1990s to expand the number of locations and opportunities whereby eligible citizens could apply to register to vote. In particular, citizens were to be given a voter registration application when they applied for or renewed a driver’s licence (hence it became known as the ‘Motor Voter Act’), or when applying for (or receiving) services at certain other public offices. Nearly one third of registrations are submitted in the US at motor vehicle agencies. Some studies suggest it raised turnout by around 2 percentage points and some have argued that the results could have been even better with improved implementation.

Support for making registration easier dates back to 2014, when a select committee report on Voter Engagement proposed making it automatic. This became the basis of some party manifestos. There is now a growing cross-party consensus about a set of measures that could be used to address the problem of the Missing Millions, with a report on the issue published last year and backed by members of all political parties in Westminster. After all the divisions the Brexit debate has opened up, the effort to build a complete and inclusive democracy is more important than ever before. …”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/03/08/now-theyre-on-a-roll-how-to-get-the-missing-millions-onto-the-electoral-register/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

It’s best to live in Surrey if you want favours from the government

“Philip Hammond was among a series of Conservative MPs who lobbied on behalf of Surrey county council in a row over social care funding, correspondence released under freedom of information laws has shown, reviving claims the council received a special deal from ministers.

Hours after Theresa May insisted at prime minister’s questions that Surrey had enjoyed no preferential treatment, one of the released letters and emails showed the chancellor had spoken to the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, on the council’s behalf.

Hammond, who represents the Surrey constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge, wrote to the council’s deputy leader, Peter Martin, in September to sympathise about funding difficulties, saying he would “take this up with Sajid Javid”.

The correspondence shows that another Surrey MP, Jonathan Lord, wrote to the council in November saying he had discussed the issue with Javid and “he’s doing something for us”.

In an email to the council’s leader David Hodge and fellow Surrey Tory MPs in January, Lord suggested Javid might have “£40m hidden under the departmental sofa” for the council, and suggested other councils’ budgets could be trimmed to help.

The correspondence, released following a freedom of information request from the BBC, follows a long and public standoff between by the Conservative-run council and Javid’s department over what Hodge said was a funding gap to pay for social care.

Hodge promised to hold a referendum of Surrey residents on imposing a 15% rise in council tax to make up the shortfall. However, last month this was called off at the last moment.

Leaked text messages passed to Labour last month prompted Jeremy Corbyn to accuse May at prime minister’s questions of buying off Surrey with a special deal, something she denied.

Following the release of a recording in which Hodge told fellow Surrey Conservatives about a “gentleman’s agreement” with ministers, Corbyn reiterated the accusation at PMQs on Wednesday. May again denied Surrey had received special treatment.

The new documents show a concerted lobbying effort by Surrey MPs, among them Hammond. Other Surrey MPs to lobby for the council included Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, Michael Gove, Crispin Blunt and Dominic Raab, the correspondence showed.

It also highlights the extent of anger felt by Hodge over the funding issue. In one letter, he accuses Javid of “some seriously muddled thinking”, and warns of the political consequences if an agreement is not reached. “We will see the largest Conservative group in the country pitted against a Conservative government, and we will be blunt about where we think the blame lies,” he warned.

Writing to Hodge, Hammond had said: “I recognise the challenges you are facing in Surrey, and the apparently harsh treatment that the funding formula delivers, and I will take this up with Sajid Javid.”

An email from Lord in November suggested Javid and Hammond were seeking to help the council. “I have spoken to Sajid J, and he says he’s doing something for us,” Lord wrote. “Won’t be drawn on exactly what. Says that Philip H is being supportive and will be signing off on things for us.”

But a subsequent email from Lord in January said he was “extremely unimpressed” Javid had not “come up with the goods”.

He wrote: “If Saj was imprudent enough to not have £40m hidden under the departmental sofa just for this sort of emergency/problem/‘outlier’ emerging from his department’s draft settlement, then I assume, if he is a man of his word, that he must have done his best to put a strong case to the Trreasury

“If all his local government settlement money is really allocated, if the Treasury is refusing to help out, and if he can’t find a pot of money for the ‘missing’ learning disability grants, then Saj still has the option of adjusting all the other council settlements down very slightly in order to accommodate the £31m needed for Surrey – and I think he should be encouraged to do this.”

The shadow communities secretary, Teresa Pearce, said May should “come clean” over the deal. “Despite Theresa May’s claims to the contrary, this is more evidence of the Tories’ secret deal with the leadership of Surrey county council,” she said.

“We need full disclosure of the terms of the deal and reassurance that all councils will be treated the same way, not just the lucky few the Tories favour.”

However, a government spokesman said the discussions were nothing exceptional.

“As we have repeatedly made clear, there was no special deal for Surrey county council and they will not receive any extra funding that would not otherwise be provided or offered to other councils. To imply the opposite is simply untrue,” he said.

Javid’s department discussed funding settlements “with councils across the country, of all types and all political parties”, he added. “This happens every year, involves councils making representations to the government, and has always been the process.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/08/philip-hammond-among-mps-lobbying-for-surrey-county-council-in-funding-row

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Standards Committee, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

“Surrey council leader ‘had gentleman’s agreement’ with ministers”

David Hodge, the leader of Surrey council, told Conservative colleagues that he had secured a “gentleman’s agreement” with senior cabinet ministers that persuaded him to cancel a threat to raise council tax by 15%.

In a secret recording of a Conservative group meeting on 7 February, the politician revealed there had been a “series of conversations” with the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, in a car outside Downing street, followed by a second meeting with the chancellor, Philip Hammond.

Hodge told those in the room not to email or tweet any details as he shared details of meetings that appeared to take place between an MP acting as an intermediary and the cabinet members.

He said the MP was “looking for assurances, looking for clarification, looking for help basically on how we could stop the referendum” from Javid in the car.

“He [the MP] then went inside and spoke to the chancellor – I think I can say that. He went inside and spoke to the chancellor, his spad was waiting – spad being his political whatever they call it [special adviser] – he was with him and then the spad rang me with what we can and cannot say,” Hodge added, according to a transcript of the meeting passed to the Guardian.

Hodge implied that the outcome of the meeting was for him to withdraw the decision to push for a referendum that day, which would allow the council to raise the tax to 15%, and instead stick with the 4.99% allowed without asking voters for permission.

The question over whether Surrey was subject to a sweetheart deal was raised in the House of Commons by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a day later, on 8 February after he received leaked texts from Hodge that suggested an agreement had been reached.

But this recording goes much further – with Hodge talking about his major worries about finances, particularly disability funding. He talked about the government pushing forward with some form of funding review.

“We’ve agreed this morning that, subject to them agreeing, that if it’s possible, we will become part of that process going forward,” he said, before adding that he was not giving up the fight over disability funding or the Better Care Fund for social care.

“We listened carefully to the information that was being relayed back to us from government. Yes, on one hand Tony is absolutely right, we should get something in writing. But on the other hand I do actually have something in writing, that Helen knows I have in writing, Sir Paul Beresford knows I have in writing, which gives me a certain amount of comfort but I’m not going to release that information for obvious reasons,” he added.

“There may come a time that if what I call gentleman’s agreements, that the Conservative party often does, are not honoured, we will have to revisit this in nine months or a year’s time. If we do, let me assure you, you’ll have to drag me kicking and screaming not to go for a referendum next year.”

The shadow communities minister, Gareth Thomas, said: “Sajid Javid and Philip Hammond should come to the House of Commons and explain what the gentleman’s agreement that they’ve done – explain why they are offering it to Surrey council and not the rest of English councils trying to manage budgets that are at tipping point.”

The meeting of the council’s Conservative group took place on a Tuesday, the same day that the council announced plans to cancel the referendum. The issue was then raised by Corbyn at prime minister’s questions in the House of Commons the next day following texts referring to a “memorandum of understanding” between the government and council.

A day later, on Thursday 9 February, it emerged that Surrey county council had been chosen to take part in a new government pilot scheme under which the local authority would retain 100% of business rates raised in the county.

But both Javid and the council strongly denied there was any sweetheart deal. A spokesman for Surrey county council said they could not comment on a meeting of the Conservative group, but said there had been no shift from a statement issued when the controversy first emerged.

Hodge said at the time: “Surrey’s decision not to proceed with a 15% council tax increase was ours alone and there has been no deal between Surrey county council and the government.

“However, I am confident that the government now understands the real pressures in adult social care and the need for a lasting solution.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/07/surrey-council-leader-had-gentlemans-agreement-with-ministers

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Conflict of interest – it starts at the top

“The Bank of England’s new deputy governor has admitted breaching the Bank’s guidelines after she failed to declare that her brother worked for Barclays.

In a letter to the Treasury select committee, Charlotte Hogg apologised for not formally disclosing that her brother was the bank’s director of group strategy, which could conflict with her work on the Prudential Regulation Committee (PRC).

The apology comes after Hogg, who has been touted as a possible successor to Mark Carney, the Bank’s governor, told the committee at a hearing last week that she always declared areas of conflicts of interests and was compliant with all of the Bank’s codes of conduct because she helped write them.

The PRC has direct responsibility for regulating banks, including Barclays.

In the letter, Hogg wrote: “As Barclays Bank plc is regulated by the PRA, under the Bank’s internal code of conduct and personal relationships policy, I should have formally declared my brother’s role when I first joined the Bank.

“I did not do so and I take full responsibility for this oversight. I have now added a full record of my brother’s role in the Bank’s HR systems.

“Regrettably, my oversight means that my oral evidence to the committee in this respect was not accurate. I write now to correct that evidence at the earliest opportunity and to place on record my sincere apologies to the committee.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/07/bank-of-england-deputy-governor-fails-to-declare-conflict-of-interest

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC internal Auditors Report: High risk: Capital Risk Assessment

Capital Risk Assessment

page 36:

“The Capital Programme does not accurately estimate the cost or timescales necessary to implement the capital projects required by the Council to deliver its corporate objectives, leading to unanticipated additional spend or delayed completion of the capital programme.”

Page 37:

“As part of our sample testing, we found that three of the four projects tested did not have a risk register to manage their associated risks. Relevant risks included uncertainties in securing external funding (Seaton Workshop), delays in completion of the project (Seaton Workshop, New Feniton Flood Alleviation Scheme and Mamhead Slipway) and significant overspends (New Feniton Flood Alleviation Scheme and Mamhead Slipway.)

Without formal risk management processes in place, there is a likelihood that individual projects are not identifying risks at an early stage leading to an increased risk of projects not being completed on time or within the agreed budget.”

Page 39:

“In our sample of capital projects, it was evident in speaking to staff that the Council had not anticipated the level of funding required for the Seaton Workshop project at an early stage, which may suggest that insufficient research was done to review the viability of the project prior to approval of the project/budget.

The Finance Team should consider whether evidence to support capital appraisals should be clearly documented. They should also consider implementing clear guidance on the level of initial assessment which should be required to be undertaken for capital projects if this is not clearly stated on any current policy/guidance. Any approach should be based on the level of risk and funding of the project as it was evident that some capital projects are lower in risk and value than others.

There is a risk that proposed projects are not being subject to the right level of assessment which could increase the likelihood of funding the wrong projects, and could also lead to delays and overspend to individual projects.”

Click to access 020317combinedagagenda.pdf

Oh dear.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Planning System, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Council applies for judicial review of one of its own planning decisions”

Would never happen here … though Owl does recall something not dissimilar … a while back.

“A local authority has applied for a judicial review of one of its planning decisions, after a councillor voted in favour of an application brought by her brother-in-law.

Applicant Nick Barrett, owner of a restaurant in Long Melford, had applied to Babergh District Council for permission to build an annexe.

His application was approved at a meeting in November 2016. The minutes of the meeting note that Melanie Barrett, Mr Barrett’s sister-in-law, had stated that she had a family association with the applicant.

The minutes of the meeting also said that another councillor had stated that he was employed by a family member of the applicant.

The minutes continued: “Following clarification from Phil Devonald, Interim Deputy Monitoring Officer -Programme Delivery, the legal advisor to the Committee, the Councillors asserted that the statements by Councillors Barrett and Holt did not constitute a disclosable interest by reason of close family relationship or employment as provided for under the Suffolk Local Code of Conduct adopted by the Council.

“He advised however that this was a matter of public perception and confidence in the transparency and fairness of the system and that Members should consider whether they should take part in the proceedings given the nature of their relationship to the Applicant. This advice was not accepted by the Councillors concerned.”

A spokesman for Babergh told Local Government Lawyer that the council had not received any complaints but the authority considered it necessary to take the issue to judicial review.

“On the one hand it is not a good thing that we are having to do this,” he added. “However, it shows that the mechanisms are there to review our actions.”

Mr Barrett told the Suffolk Free Press that the annexe was being built for his 87-year-old father.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30304%3Acouncil-applies-for-judicial-review-of-one-of-its-own-planning-decisions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Green (local), Labour ( Devon), Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Exeter councillor goes Green because of “lack of transparency”

Swap Labour for Conservative and East Devon Alliance for Green in East Devon and you have a similar situation – an entrenched old-boys-and-girls power base that needs removing.

“Exeter has its first ever Green Party city councillor following the defection from Labour of Alphington councillor Chris Musgrave. And Cllr Musgrave says he has made the decision as he has become increasingly disillusioned with a ‘small clique making decisions behind closed doors’ and a refusal by the Labour group to accept proper scrutiny in decision making.

Cllr Musgrave says he has been drawn to the Green Party because of their deep-seated commitment to openness and transparency in local government, something he says is ‘in short supply with the current Labour administration.’

He added: “Openness and transparency is in short supply in the local Labour Party. Major decisions are increasingly made by a small clique behind closed doors with the majority of councillors locked out of the process. Whenever I have challenged the Labour Party and Labour-led council on major decisions – which is exactly what I believe I should be doing as an elected Councillor – I have been told in no uncertain terms to be quiet. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/exeter-city-councillor-defects-from-labour-to-join-the-green-party/story-30168791-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

1 Comment

Dame Ruth Carnall (Devon CCG chair): more questions, no answers

“Candy Udwin, from Camden Keep NHS Public

A CONTROVERSIAL shake-up in the way north London’s health services are run has already led to a cash bonanza for private companies, the New Journal can reveal.

While campaigners and some local politicians are still warning that the overhaul – known as the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) – is cover for deep NHS cuts, the process has already begun, with consultants brought into advise on the changes.

Around £2.3million has been paid out by Camden Clinical Commissioning Group in return for help in drawing up a 68-page plan, which looks at how spending across five boroughs, including Camden and Islington, could be reduced by £1billion by 2022.

It has been criticised for being an obscure document which does not make clear where savings are going to be made.

Details of the payments to consultants show how one firm received more than £600,000 to set up and manage the STP office before a permanent team was hired and space offered up at Camden Council’s headquarters at 5 Pancras Square in King’s Cross.

Mark Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association’s council, said: “Doctors will find it galling to see that so much vital resource has been handed to consultancy firms for their part in failing plans which, ultimately, may never come to fruition, while frontline staff struggle to provide safe patient care in a service increasingly becoming unfit for purpose.”

Candy Udwin, from Camden Keep Our NHS Public, added: “It is truly shocking that at a time of such crisis in the NHS, Camden CCG has given over £2million to private consultancy firms, with a large amount of this going on STP plans which are meant to be finding ways to meet their deficit.”

Most of the companies earning payouts for help with STP have been set up by former public servants, including the former chief executive of NHS London, Dame Ruth Carnall.

Carnall Farrar – which received £115,882 for a STP “review of commissioning arrangements” – was founded by Dame Ruth Carnall and Hannah Farrar, a former director of NHS London, and Ben Richardson, who was a senior partner at McKinsey & Co, after NHS London was disbanded in 2014.

McKinsey & Co, the UK arm of the American management consultancy giant, is one of the big earners from the north London STP – being paid £360,000 from Camden CCG for help on “strategy assessment to investigate further options for the transformation of mental health services” and also “financial modelling of mental health programme initiatives”.

Financial advisers Deloitte netted £257,336 for “support for STP finance and activity modelling” while Methods Advisory was paid £617,850 for “programme management office (PMO) and strategy support”.

The New Journal contacted Methods Advisory for comment on details of the PMO but did not receive a reply.

Hunter Healthcare, which on its website states its values include integrity, tenacity and passion, also received £282,518 for interim administrative support for the PMO. GE Healthcare Finnamore, owned by the US multinational corporation General Electric, was paid £9,900 for more “support with STP finance and activity modelling”.

Health Finance and Economics – a company set up in September 2015 – is so small it is exempted from providing full accounts at Companies House.

It has no website or office, and is run by Jonathan Wise, a former chief finance officer at Brent, Harrow and Hillingdon CCG. It was paid £107,710 for “support for STP finance and activity modelling”.

The New Journal has contacted all of the companies on the list, with only Deloitte and McKinsey responding with short statements saying they could not comment on “client work” and recommending contact with the NHS.

None of the companies involved took up an opportunity to explain how the work of consultancy firms can help the NHS generally.

A spokeswoman for the STP said the large sums listed were partly caused by the new organisation being set up from a “zero base” and that consultants were hired only on an “interim basis” to assist in developing the plan.

“This work was completed by consultants and now a North Central London STP programme management team is in place,” she added. There would now be a “significantly reduced reliance on consultants”.

She added: “Contracts were put in place following a competitive tender using a national consultancy framework.”

Campaigners from Camden are set to join a national Save the NHS demonstration in central London on March 4.”

http://camdennewjournal.com/article/revealed-how-consultancy-firms-have-already-netted-2-million-in-nhs-shake-up

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

“East Devon District Council’s scrutiny committee blasts NHS Property Services”

From the blog of Claire Wright- good to see one committee at EDDC doing a proper job:

“East Devon District Council’s scrutiny committee has delivered a stinging rebuke against the secretary of state for health’s private company, NHS Property Services after the managers declined once again to attend a meeting.

A similar thing has happened at Devon County Council’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee. The company claims to be part of the “NHS family” but it appears, only when it suits them.

The resolution below, speaks for itself. Congratulations to chairman, Roger Giles and all those councillors who spoke and voted for the resolution.

1. The Scrutiny Committee records its deep regret that the NHS Property Services has declined its invitation to a meeting of the East Devon District Council Scrutiny Committee;

2. The Scrutiny Committee to write to the three local MPs representing East Devon, expressing its concern at the failure of NHS Property Services to agree to attend a meeting of the East Devon District Council Scrutiny Committee, and asks the MPs to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Health, with a view to his ensuring proper openness and transparency in the work of NHS Property Services, and ensuring proper public scrutiny of the work of the NHS Property Services, by requiring attendance at meetings of local councils when requested to do so;

3. The Scrutiny Committee to write to the Devon County Council Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, expressing its concerns;

4. The Scrutiny Committee to write to NHS Property Services requesting details of the actual market rent for Axminster Hospital, Budleigh Salterton Hospital, Exmouth Hospital, Honiton Hospital, Seaton Hospital and Sidmouth Hospital, with details of how those figures were arrived at.”

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