Category Archives: Scrutiny

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Limited number of meetings in East Devon on latest NHS cuts

From “Save our Hospital Services East Devon” Facebook page, posted by Di Fuller:

“Devon’s Acute Services Review is taking place under the five-year Wider-Devon Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). The detailed case for change is set out on the websites of NHS NEW Devon CCG and South Devon and Torbay CCG.

The high priority acute services being reviewed are:

• Stroke services, including hyper-acute and stroke rehabilitation (clinician workshops taking place between December 2016 and March 2017)
• Maternity and paediatrics (clinician workshops taking place between January 2017 and March 2017)
• Urgent and emergency care. (clinician workshops taking place between January 2017 and March 2017)

Work is also underway to discuss a range of vulnerable services. “Each of these services has particular challenges and we cannot resolve them with the current model of service delivery. This work is ongoing and will follow a similar process to that of the high priority acute services.”

During March 2017 the Devon STP teams are offering the public limited opportunities to discuss what is important to them about acute services.

This feedback will be collated into themes and called decision-making criteria. There are only 3 sessions in East Devon:

Monday 6th March 10.30-12.30 New Hall, Barrington Street, Tiverton
Monday 13th March 18.00-20.00 Kings School, Ottery St Mary.
Monday 20th March 18.30-20.30 Exeter Corn Exchange

Register 01392 267642 or email d-ccg.CorporateServices@nhs.net”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Scrutiny

Many councils expect to find themselves technically insolvent soon

Many councils fear that they will become technically insolvent. So what does ours do? Pursues a vanity project relocation from one HQ to an HQ with two satellite offices – one which needs a massive amount of money spent on it because estimates of cost were made before a full survey was done (Exmouth) and one that requires new build (Manstone) – all three when building costs are rising 20-35% coupled with a growing shortage of skilled labour which will push wages up.

Fiddling while Rome burns? Play that fiddle! 🎻

“Some local authorities may be forced to declare technical insolvency in the next two years, experts have said, as councils struggle to weather the financial pressures caused by budget cuts and growing demand for social care.

A survey of councils in England and Wales by the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) thinktank found that three-quarters had little or no confidence in the sustainability of local government finances and more than one in 10 believed they were in danger of failing to meet legal requirements to deliver core services. …

… “Councils have no faith in the system. They are patching together their finances by putting up council tax, drawing down reserves and increasing charges. Increasingly they worry that they will not be able to provide the vital services that people rely on.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/10/councils-budget-cuts-social-care-bills

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Devon and Cornwall Police under- reporting crimes – by up to 17,400 per year

Isn’t this just the sort of thing Ms Hernandez, our Police and Crime Commissioner, is supposed to be making sure doesn’t happen?

Does she have a plan?

East Devon District Council has a former copper (Councillor Tom Wright) on the committee she reports to – perhaps he could ask her.

However, as this committee met recently only to set the police precept and its next meeting, scheduled for 7 April 2017* has already been cancelled:

http://web.plymouth.gov.uk/modgov?modgovlink=http%3A%2F%2Fdemocracy.plymouth.gov.uk%2FieListMeetings.aspx%3FCommitteeId%3D1051

that might prove to be a bit difficult.

* surely this meeting has not been cancelled to avoid bad news for the Tories just before DCC elections?

The Plymouth Herald covers the story here:

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/rape-and-child-abuse-not-being-recorded-by-police/story-30121826-detail/story.html

and says:

“Inspectors said the force had “no excuse” for the failings and had failed to act on many of the recommendations it had made three years ago.”

The story on the BBC Live website:

“Devon and Cornwall police are failing victims of crime by not recording thousands of offences, including rape and serious assaults, an official report has found.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary estimates the force is failing to record more than 17,400 reported crimes each year.

The policing regulator rated the force as “inadequate” on the issue.

HM Inspector of Constabulary Wendy Williams said: “I was most concerned to find that the force had failed to record reports of rape, serious sexual assault and offences of serious assault and human trafficking.”

The force said they put victims at the heart of their work, and most of the criticisms concerned updating records and administration.”

Source: BBC Devon Live website

Here is the PCC’s catch-all spin response which shows that her former job in PR is one to which she could readily return:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/police-commissioner-alison-hernandez-says-police-must-improve-in-row-over-crime-reporting/story-30123712-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

National Audit Office slams health and care integration implementation

HOW CAN CUTS TO COMMUNITY HOSPITALS GO AHEAD AFTER THIS STINGING REPORT?

The National Audit Office report issued today
Summary

“Health and social care integration

The Better Care Fund has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or hospital activity.

National Audit Office

“Integrating the health and social care sectors is a significant challenge in normal times, let alone times when both sectors are under such severe pressure. So far, benefits have fallen far short of plans, despite much effort.

It will be important to learn from the over-optimism of such plans when implementing the much larger NHS sustainability and transformation plans.The Departments do not yet have the evidence to show that they can deliver their commitment to integrated services by 2020, at the same time as meeting existing pressures on the health and social care systems.”

The National Audit Office warns that progress with integration of health and social care has, to date, been slower and less successful than envisaged and has not delivered all of the expected benefits for patients, the NHS or local authorities. As a result, the government’s plan for integrated health and social care services across England by 2020 is at significant risk.

In the face of increased demand for care and constrained finances, while the Better Care Fund, the principal integration initiative, has improved joint working, it has not yet achieved its potential. The Fund has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or reduced hospital activity, from the £5.3 billion spent through the Fund in 2015-16.

Nationally, the Fund did not achieve its principal financial and service targets over 2015-16, its first year. Planned reductions in rates of emergency admissions were not achieved, nor did the Fund achieve the planned savings of £511 million. Compared with 2014-15, emergency admissions increased by 87,000 against a planned reduction of 106,000, costing £311 million more than planned. Furthermore, days lost to delayed transfers of care increased by 185,000, against a planned reduction of 293,000, costing £146 million more than planned.

The Fund has, however, been successful in incentivising local areas to work together; more than 90% of local areas agreed or strongly agreed that delivery of their plan had improved joint working. Local areas also achieved improvements at the national level in reducing permanent admissions of people aged 65 and over to residential and nursing care homes, and in increasing the proportion of older people still at home 91 days after discharge from hospital into reablement or rehabilitation services.

There is general agreement across the health and social care sectors that place-based planning is the right way to manage scarce resources at a system-wide level. However, local government was not involved in the design and development of the NHS-led sustainability and transformation planning programme. Local authorities’ engagement in the planning and decision making phase has been variable, although four sustainability and transformation planning areas are led by local authority officials.

The Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government have identified barriers to integration, such as misaligned financial incentives, workforce challenges and the reticence over information sharing, but are not systematically addressing them.

Research commissioned by the government in 2016 concluded that local areas are not on track to achieve the target of integrated health and social care by 2020.

Today’s report also found that NHS England’s ambition to save £900 million through introducing seven new care models may be optimistic. The new care models are as yet unproven and their impact is still being evaluated. According to the NAO, while the Departments and their partners have set up an array of initiatives examining different ways to transform care and create a financially sustainable care system, their governance and oversight of the initiatives is poor. The Integration Partnership Board only receives updates on progress of the Better Care Fund with no reporting from other integration programmes.

In addition, the NAO found no compelling evidence to show that integration in England leads to sustainable financial savings or reduced acute hospital activity. While there are some good examples of integration at a local level, evaluations have been inhibited by a lack of comparable cost data across different care settings, and difficulty tracking patients through different care settings. The NAO today reiterates its emphasis from its 2014 report on the Better Care Fund that there is a need for robust evidence on how best to improve care and save money through integration and for a co-ordinated approach.”

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/health-and-social-care-integration/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

“BBC commits £8m for 150 local democracy reporters to cover council meetings”

Well, the need for a BBC-paid journalist to work for a newspaper that already has “a previous track record of public service journalism” should knock out the odd newspaper group in our area! Perhaps there should be a further qualification that the newspapers should receive less than 50% of that area’s council advertising budget too! And a shame that they won’t be allowed to attend Local Enterprise Partnership board meetings which are held in secret.

“The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is to fund 150 news reporters to cover council and public meetings across the UK to enable better scrutiny of council proceedings and decisions.

The journalists will work for “qualifying” regional publishers rather than the BBC, with the remit of covering full council and committee meetings, and will share the information gained with the BBC. To qualify, local news organisations will need to demonstrate that they have a “previous track record” of public service journalism, as well as the ability to employ staff.

James Harding, director of BBC News and Current Affairs, said: “As more power is devolved across the UK, it’s more important than ever that we cover, understand and hold to account local politicians and public services,” he said.

The initiative forms part of the BBC’s new charter which commences this year and is aimed at filling the growing gaps in local news reporting as local newspapers have suffered from declining revenues.

So far, the BBC has allocated 20 reporters in Scotland, three in Northern Ireland, 11 in Wales and 104 in England, with plans to place the full 150 journalists by 2018.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29922%3Abbc-commits-p8m-for-150-local-democracy-reporters-to-cover-council-meetings&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Feb 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Scrutiny, Transparency

Developers “profit sharing” with NHBC warranty firm

“The organisation that provides warranties for most of the new homes in Britain is paying millions of pounds to the leading housebuilders every year, raising questions about its independence and credibility amid a wave of complaints about the quality of new-build properties.

NHBC, the standard-setting body and main home construction warranty provider for new builds in the UK, is paying around £10m to £15m every year to housebuilders through what is effectively a profit-share agreement. The largest firms can receive as much as £2m from the scheme, because it rewards the developers who registered the most homes with NHBC.

Campaigners said the revelation shows that NHBC is on the side of developers rather than consumers and that the lack of protection for buyers of new homes is a “scandal”.

A senior industry source said the annual payment to the housebuilders was a way to keep them “sweet” and ensure they remained NHBC customers. The source also said that the system is open to abuse, and there were at least two occasions since 2010 when a major housebuilder asked for an extra or increased payment which was approved by NHBC.

The questions about the credibility of NHBC, which claims to have an 80% share of the warranties market, will also be a headache for the government, which is poised to launch its housing white paper this week.

PM to reaffirm green belt pledge despite plans to ramp up housebuilding
There have been an increasing number of complaints about problems with new homes and the lack of protection and compensation for consumers from NHBC’s warranties. Last month it was revealed that Bovis had paid the purchasers of new homes to move in early only for the buyers to find the property unfinished.

The NHBC warranty is a form of insurance that is supposed to compensate home buyers or fix any faults in the new property if there are problems within the first 10 years.

Paula Higgins, co-founder and chief executive of the campaign group HomeOwners Alliance, said: “As we have more houses being built and the government encouraging people to buy new homes, we are seeing more and more issues with quality.

“The government is more concerned with numbers than homes for the future and there is a real danger that we are building the wrong sort of home.”

Higgins said NHBC was “too much of a monopoly” in the warranties market and described its relationship with housebuilders as “cosy”.

“I think NHBC is acting on behalf of the developers and its members. I don’t think they are acting on behalf of consumers,” said Higgins. “The quality of new homes – it is a scandal.”

The potential conflict of interest between NHBC paying compensation to consumers and returning cash to housebuilders will lead to more calls for the government to introduce an independent ombudsman to oversee complaints about new homes or for the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate NHBC’s dominance of the market.

Oliver Colvile, the Conservative MP who chair an all-party parliamentary group on new-build properties, said he had great concern about the independence of NHBC. He called for an ombudsman to be introduced and for homebuyers to be allowed to inspect their new home before they purchase it.

“I think what needs to happen is that the government needs to look at this seriously. This is a consumer rights issue,” he said. “Lets put the consumer on top of the list. I want to see action on this issue.”

NHBC has faced questions about its independence before because it is paid a membership fee by housebuilders, meaning they effectively fund it. However, this is the first time it has been revealed that NHBC pays millions back to developers.

The payment is referred to as a “premium refund” in the financial accounts of NHBC. However, it is only mentioned in the notes to the accounts and the amount paid out is not disclosed.

A letter seen by the Guardian from NHBC to a housebuilder shows the payment is based on a complex calculation that takes into account the number of homes registered by the developer 15 years ago, the cost of claims paid out on these homes and the investment return earned by the NHBC. The 15-year period allows time for the property to be built, sold and the warranty to expire. However, on top of this formula, each year the NHBC also determines the size of the total pot of cash that is available to be shared out with the housebuilders.

NHBC defended the payments but refused to confirm how much it had paid out to housebuilders or comment on the extra payments to the two housebuilders.

The NHBC said: “NHBC provides a market-leading warranty, which currently protects 1.6 million UK consumers.

“Last year we paid £90m in respect of claims in addition to providing assistance to homeowners through our resolution service, which mediates between homeowners and their builder and last year found in favour of homeowners in 70% of cases.

“As is standard practice, we do not discuss our commercial transactions or our underwriting terms.

“It is common practice in the insurance industry to recognise good claims history in a number of ways such as no-claim bonuses, and this is what our premium refund system, established in the 1990s and disclosed in our accounts, is designed to achieve.

“The system is consistently applied and is based on clear rules and processes. As this refund recognises long-term good claims history, the rules state that builders do not need to be current NHBC customers to receive it.

“The sum paid in refunds is a very small proportion of NHBC’s annual turnover.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/05/new-homes-warranty-firm-pays-millions-to-leading-homebuilders

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

A council “Communications Officer” (press officer) tells the truth about his soul-destroying job

“I can’t face watching I, Daniel Blake because every day I feel complicit in a system that denigrates vulnerable people.

I knew leaving the voluntary sector to go and work for a local authority would require a culture shift, but I did not fully comprehend how difficult it would be to put a positive spin on cuts to local services after years spent promoting social justice campaigns.

I am part of a team which creates and distributes communications to the general public, through newsletters, the council website, on social media and through the local media. Working in communications often means putting aside your personal opinions and values for the good of the organisation paying your salary, and I have a lot of sympathy with local authorities now I’ve seen it from the inside.

I field calls for stretched council services – and soon my job may be cut too.

With brutal funding cuts from central government and the growing pressure on services, many councils are trying to make the best of a bad situation and make budgets stretch, regardless of politics.

But when Ken Loach’s ‘I, Daniel Blake’ was released last year, all my friends went to watch it in the cinema. I could not face going with them, knowing I was complicit in the same system the film portrayed as destroying people’s lives.

I can see the red tape responsible for the denigration of vulnerable people around me every day, and to be responsible for dressing up the effects of needless bureaucracy in a pretty package for our local papers is soul-destroying. Our press releases go through rigorous rounds of sign off, through all sorts of departments, senior council officers and councillors, all of whom want to remove any material that could incur criticism, which results in bland, council-speak copy.

People probably wouldn’t expect a press officer to care about local reporters, especially as they are usually asking us for responses to critical stories about the council, but I have real sympathy with them. Most of them are inexperienced and clearly stretched for time and resources: their copy is riddled with factual errors that could easily have been double checked, resulting in fractious phone calls between our side and theirs.

The vulnerable people I became a councillor to help have no idea I’m here. The reality is most residents don’t have the time or inclination to attend committee meetings or read all the reports and documents produced by the council. They should know how funding cuts are going to affect their local services and communities. It’s all there in black and white if you know where to find it. It’s an easier time for us if contentious issues pass through committees easily, as there are fewer difficult questions from reporters for the week’s papers.

Social media has become another accountability function for councils, which creates a lot more noise for us to deal with. Most councils will have active citizen campaigners ready to jump on any communication the council puts out to rip it to shreds. These days, it’s actually these people, rather than journalists, who spot the things the council would prefer went unquestioned. It can be disheartening, particularly when you’ve worked hard to capture the nuance of a complicated situation, but when you agree with the critics over the council it’s hard to take it too personally.”

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/feb/04/media-press-officer-council-cuts-local-papers-daniel-blake

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

How long is a piece of NHS Property Services string?

New owners of Sidmouth Victoria Hospital under fire for ‘incomprehensible’ answer to rent question.

NHS Property Services (NHSPS) took over 12 East Devon community hospitals on December 1, 2016 – prompting fears from some trustees and representatives over the future of the facilities under a commercially-operated company.

Speaking at a recent Devon County Council (DCC) health and wellbeing scrutiny meeting, Councillor Claire Wright called for NHSPS bosses to be held to account and voiced her frustration at repeated failures to provide the authority with more information.

Cllr Wright asked the company to outline how much each community hospital is being charged in rent, but NHSPS says it is unable to disclose the figures as they remain in commercial confidence while lease negotiations are being concluded.

Cllr Wright said: “I asked for the information in June and I asked again and they said they would get the information and they did not. The answer they have given is incomprehensible.

“A very strong message needs to go back that we have now been waiting seven months for an answer to a very straightforward question and we would appreciate it if they would come to the next meeting because they now own 12 community hospitals across East Devon.”

NHSPS is responsible for managing 3,500 NHS buildings and ploughs any profits back into the health services – selling on property it considers no longer necessary.

Cllr Wright argued it cannot ‘pick and choose’ and, if it is – as claimed – a part of the NHS family, should be held accountable.

Sidmouth fundraisers have vowed to safeguard the future of the town’s hospital, which has undergone a £5million refurbishment paid for entirely by community contributions.

Vice president of the Sidmouth Victoria Hospital Comforts Fund, Frances Newth, said it has received assurance from NHSPS that there should be no noteable changes under the new ownership. She added that trustees have emphasised the amount of community support received in the town and the importance of maintaining it.

Responding to a question from DCC about the amount of rental income compared to figures spent on maintenance, NHSPS revealed its budgeted rental income for 2016/17 is £408 million nationally.

The amount set out for routine, small-scale maintenance in this period is £98 million – which does not include overheads such as salaries of teams carrying out the work – and an additional £60 million is forecasted for larger maintenance projects.

A spokesman for NHSPS said: “The information sent to the council this month was provided further to attending two committee sessions in 2016, where members had the opportunity to question company representatives in person.

“We have provided supporting written information on two other occasions, as requested by the council.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new_owners_of_sidmouth_victoria_hospital_under_fire_for_incomprehensible_answer_to_rent_question_1_4874530

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Development Management Committee, Scrutiny, Transparency

Tell the truth and be fired …

“A veteran councillor in Theresa May’s constituency has been sacked after questioning plans for thousands of homes in the green belt.

Leo Walters, a former Conservative mayor of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, was removed as chairman of the council’s housing scrutiny panel after expressing concern that the public had not been fully informed about the threat to the green belt.

He said that he had been removed by Simon Dudley, the council’s leader, after “simply handing out facts”.

Mr Walters had sent an email to his fellow panel members informing them of a Freedom of Information response from the council revealing that 86 per cent of the land that it was proposing for development was in the green belt. …”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Devolution, EDBF, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Is Trump using the Local Enterprise Partnership model?

This is spookily like the way our Local Enterprise Partnerships (and before that, the East Devon Business Forum) were created – with business people in the driving seat and councils as passengers without seatbelts!

“President Donald Trump met with a roomful of top CEOs at the White House – and says he tried to install other titans of industry on his executive council only to have them nixed as ‘corporate raiders.’

Trump met with a group that included Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink, retired GE CEO Jack Welch – whom he called ‘legendary’ – and other business bigs.

As if that weren’t enough financial firepower, Trump said that he tried to get other financial bigs onto the panel, which meets about once a month to advise him the economy, taxes, and regulations.

‘So many people have called – friends of mine in big business,’ Trump said, ‘and that wanted to be on the committee.’

Billionaire Stephen Schwartzman of Blackstone private equity firm, who serves on the council, acted as gatekeeper. “I said, ‘Steve, can we get so and so?’ Trump said, with the CEOs gathered around him.

‘Nope,’ Schwartzman replied. ‘What do you mean no, it’s big business, massive business,’ Trump pleaded, in his telling.

‘How about this one?’ Trump would ask.

‘He’s a corporate raider, these people don’t want to be sitting with corporate raiders,’ was Schwartzman’s reply.

‘He’s been very very selective,’ Trump said, adding: ‘We’ll be putting a couple more on this.’

Introducing the group, Trump hailed BlackRock investment company CEO Larry Fink for having boosted his personal bottom line through investments.

Trump displayed no reservations about asking some of the world’s most influential bankers about their preferences for peeling back bank regulations enacted after the financial crisis.

‘We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody to tell me better about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it, but we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank.

The White House billed the event as a strategy and policy forum.
The group’s official title is the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum. It has 16 members.

Absent from the event was Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick, who announced just hours before that he had quit, following pressure from consumers over Trump’s new immigration order.

Trump didn’t mention Kalanick during his public comments.

The Uber boss quit the council, even as the company is facing blowback for its decision to drop its congestion pricing during a taxi boycott meant to oppose the immigration order.

He made his decision known in an email to employees, where he argued against Trump’s new immigration ban.

‘Earlier today I spoke briefly with the president about the immigration executive order and its issues for our community,’ Kalanick wrote. ‘I also let him know that I would not be able to participate on his economic council. Joining the group was not meant to be an endorsement of the president or his agenda but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that,’ he added.

Trump hailed another attendee, his Commerce Secretary nominee, billionaire Wilbur Ross.

‘When I campaigned for office I promised the American people that I’d ask for our country’s best and brightest, and we have that. Wilbur is representing us,’ Trump said.

Trump said of close confidante and business magnate Carl Icahn, ‘Carl Icahn called up and he goes, ‘I heard you got Wilbur. Everybody calls him Wilbur. I’ve never heard him called – we just know him as Wilbur, right?”

Trump met the business honchos as he prepared to sign executive actions asking the Treasury and the Labor Departments to examine reforms to roll back regulations intended to make markets safer and protect consumers.
The actions would examine the ‘Volcker Rule,’ meant to curb speculation, AFP reported.

‘(We) believe that Dodd-Frank in many respects was a piece of massive government overreach,’ a senior administration official told the outlet. ‘It imposed hundreds of new regulations on financial institutions, it established an enormous amount of work and effort for financial firms.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4188962/Trump-meets-CEOs-says-ll-slash-bank-regs.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

Trump takes a leaf out of EDDC’s book!

“Public-interest advocacy groups say the White House appears to be deliberately structuring Trump’s growing roster of business-focused advisory groups in order to avoid becoming subject to a federal transparency law that requires such meetings be formally announced in advance and open to the public.

“Whether it’s hastily drafted executive orders put together in the dead of night and riddled with errors and not consulting the pertinent government agencies or putting together other proposals that are shocking to many Americans, nothing that has been done so far has been inclusive, so it’s not a surprise his small working groups of CEOs would be just the same,” said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen.

A 1972 law aimed at limiting back-room influence by special interests, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, regulates the operation of federal government advisory council. Normally, the meetings of such groups are announced at least ten days in advance in the Federal Register and the sessions are open to the public. Advisory committees are also required to have an official charter, records available to the public and a federal official present during all deliberations. Presidential advisory panels are also typically set up through executive orders.

So far, there have been no official notices of any meetings and no executive orders laying out the duties of the “Strategic and Policy Forum” or any other groups Trump is convening.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-transparency-law-advisory-boards-234583

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Scrutiny

This would NEVER happen in East Devon!

“Tory councillor accused of being a ‘rogue estate agent’ for drugs syndicate

A Tory councillor was a “rogue estate agent” for a sophisticated drugs syndicate which grew more than a million pounds worth of Cannabis, a court heard.

Donal Hassett, 55, used false names, references and cover stories to rent houses which were turned into drug factories, it was said.

Police found 1,285 plants with a street value of almost £1.1m growing at seven properties, four of which were linked to the politician.

Hassett, who represents Newbridge for Bath and North East Somerset Council, denies two charges of conspiring with others to produce cannabis.

He admits fraudulently renting the houses in Somerset, Wiltshire and Bristol, but claims he had no idea they were being used to grow drugs, jurors were told.

The first charge relates to a drug-growing operation involving a 38-year-old Vietnamese man, while the second involves four other Vietnamese people.

Bristol Crown Court heard that £56,000 was put into his bank account while the second conspiracy was going on, between January 2015 and March 2016.

A further £81,000 was placed in the account of Tan Tran, 27, who is standing trial alongside Hassett.

Prosecuting, Simon Burns said Hasset, of Bath, Somerset, was the “property fixer, the rogue estate agent”, while Tran was the “courier, assistant”.

He said: “They were part of an organised sophisticated drugs syndicate operating to produce very large quantities of cannabis.

“It was as plain as a pikestaff that they had knowledge of what they were involved with.”

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/b-nes-councillor-donal-hassett-accused-of-being-a-rogue-estate-agent-for-drugs-syndicate/story-30104558-detail/story.html

Mr Hassett had served on the Licensing Committee at Bath Council and was expelled from his local Conservative Party pending the outcome of these proceedings.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Dorset, EDDC, Golden Triangle LEP, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Enterprise Partnership, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Somerset, Transparency

Relocation and local government reorganisation – a chance to save money!

What is currently more important in local government? Saving money, saving money by merger or being profligate? These seem to be the stark choices facing our district, with its reliance on the Local Enterprise Partnership for strategy, direction and funding.

Closer examination of the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting reveals that there are two references to local government reorganisation: at the bottom of page 111 and on page 115:

“Identify opportunities for rationalising/improving existing public sector governance arrangements and make recommendations to the constituent authorities/partners”

This appears to be a clear reference, as it not only refers to reform, but also says that the recommendations will go to ‘constituent authorities’. In other words we are not talking just about the LEP. The new Joint Committee clearly has mergers in mind. Add “Greater Exeter” into the mix and we come out with even more likelihood of massive changes. THEN add a mooted “Golden Triangle LEP” and we have a truly chaotic situation.

Owl wonders if these are circumstances in which to pursue a new HQ for EDDC at Honiton. Any proposal involving EDDC and avoiding building at Honiton can immediately claim to have made a minimum saving of £10 million plus interest payments, plus many associated costs – savings now being the mantra nowadays.

The relocation from Knowle could, in the above circumstances prove to be most expensive suicide note in the history of our district. And those EDDC members who waved through the move to Honiton, without the slightest idea of the cost, could in these circumstances be likened to turkeys voting for Christmas.

We have seen with the reorganisation in Dorset, that the reform and merger of local government authorities is very much in the air, and Dorset has been suggesting that the creation of two unitaries will lead to annual savings of many millions of pounds.

So it’s not surprising that things have gone very quiet with EDDC relocation. Firstly, there is local government reorganisation all around us and within our nearby city and the county. Secondly, the Pegasus deal for Knowle has seemingly gone very much on the back burner.

We have recently seen the formal separation – ‘decoupling’ – of the Exmouth Town Hall work from the Honiton proposal which seems to have had more to do with mothballing Honiton than it had to do with allowing Exmouth to proceed more quickly.

Work to refurbish Knowle is almost certainly millions of pounds cheaper than relocating. Plus, a new building in Honiton would immediately depreciate enormously on day one of occupation – 50% plus has been suggested.

Of course, PegasusLife could always put in a planning application for the Honiton site!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Health and Social Care (local), Local Enterprise Partnership, NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

Our Local Enterprise Partnership and the NHS (or not the NHS)

Comment turned into post:

“In the light of the concern over the future of the NHS it may be worth reminding ourselves just what Heart of the South West LEP proposed, on our behalf, in their 2015 Devolution Statement of Intent:

We [HOTSW] will:

• Increase productivity by reducing ill-health and reliance on the state

• Reduce overall need for formal health and social care services

• Reduce the cost of health and social care

• Help more people with long-term illnesses or mental ill-health start or return to work

What we need:

• Freedom to pool budgets and direct resources to local need

• Freedom to develop a commissioning framework that supports local decision-making

• Freedom to establish effective, integrated governance and delivery structures

• Freedom to develop local metrics and incentives

(The associated productivity prospectus says something which sounds even more sinister: “A healthier population means lower public sector costs and increased economic activity. To fill 163,000 more jobs [by 2030] we must engage the non-working population in the labour market which will require a significant health and care contribution.”)

Here is what the Public Accounts Committee concluded about LEPs and devolution in its report of 27 June 2016. (Kevin Foster MP, Conservative Torbay, is a Committee member)

“9. It is alarming that LEPs are not meeting basic standards of governance and transparency, such as disclosing conflicts of interest to the public.

LEPs are led by the private sector, and stakeholders have raised concerns that they are dominated by vested interests that do not properly represent their business communities. There is a disconnect between decisions being made by local business leaders and accountability working via local authorities.

It is therefore crucial that LEPs demonstrate a high standard of governance and transparency over decision making, at least equal to the minimum standards set out by government in the assurance framework.

It is of great concern that many LEPs appear not be meeting these minimum standards. The scale of LEP activity and the sums involved necessitate that LEPs and central government be pro-active in assuring the public that decisions are made with complete probity.

The fact that 42% of LEPs do not publish a register of interests is clearly a risk to ensuring that decisions are made free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The varying presentation and detail of financial information across LEPs also makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or make comparisons across LEPs on how they spend public money.”

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/296/29605.htm

The National Audit Office in a 2016 report also made the obvious, but crucial, point that LEPs do not yet have an established track record of delivery.

Our future is in their hands!”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, DCC, Devolution, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Somerset, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC Cabinet to discuss devolution and LEP on 8 February … councils only “influence” LEP

From Cabinet agenda – Owl summary: it has taken 5+ years for the participating councils to realise that the business people on the LEP are running rings round them and still the only thing councils can do is “influence” those same business people:

“Risk implications will continue to be addressed at all stages of these proposals.

The Secretary of State is yet to formally clarify his position on the HotSW devolution proposal although the overall policy direction seems to be becoming clearer.

In the circumstances the Leader feel that the partnership needs to move forward with the priority development of the HotSW Productivity Plan and that this can best be achieved through the establishment of a formal Joint Committee in place of the current informal governance arrangements. This will put a formal governance structure around the Productivity Plan preparation, approval and delivery so minimising risk to the County Council and the other partner authorities. It will give partners the ability to negotiate with Government at pace, particularly on the emerging Industrial Strategy but without the statutory commitment required to establish a Combined Authority.

Without a Productivity Plan and Joint Committee in place the Council and its partners will be at a disadvantage in negotiating and lobbying Government on a range or policy initiatives including the growth agenda and are likely to miss out on potential funding streams.

…..

“The HotSW Joint Committee will provide a formal strategic partnership to complement and maximise the ability of local sub- regional arrangements to deliver their aspirations. It will allow the partners to collaborate to agree and deliver the Productivity Plan as well as engage effectively with the Government, other deal areas and other LEPs on a range of policy agendas. It will allow the partnership to test and improve its ability to work together as a potential precursor to the establishment of a Combined Authority at some point in the future. It will also provide a mechanism to work alongside and influence the LEP on strategic investment decisions affecting the HotSW area and to secure improvements to LEP governance and accountability.”

Click to access combinedcabagenda080217final.pdf

(topic begins on page 107)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

(First and second) jobs for the boys – easy when watchdog has no teeth

“A Whitehall watchdog was accused of an extraordinary cover-up last night over the lucrative investment job given to George Osborne’s former top aide.

Rupert Harrison, nicknamed ‘the real Chancellor’ when he was Mr Osborne’s chief-of-staff, got a six-figure salary to work for asset management firm BlackRock two years ago.

But now it has emerged that the official appointments committee, Acoba, was reprimanded for approving the job without disclosing meetings he held with the firm while he worked for the ex-chancellor.

An investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office into the apparent cover-up denounced Acoba for a ‘shortfall in public interest transparency’. And last night Labour MP John Mann said: ‘The advisory committee is not fit for purpose and its chair must now resign.

‘There is far too much cosying up to banks. It is as if BlackRock had taken shares in the Treasury.’

The row comes as Mr Osborne himself faces controversy over his new job with BlackRock, which will pay him more than £200,000 a year to work as an adviser while he is still an MP.

His appointment was also waved through by Acoba and there are growing calls for reform of the committee and the rules surrounding MPs and second jobs.

Acoba is supposed to vet ministers and senior civil servants when they take jobs in the private sector. In the past eight years it has looked at more than 370 appointments without blocking a single one. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162438/Heads-roll-Osborne-storm.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Economy, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Tax avoidance, Transparency

One tax for the rich and one for the poor … and guess who wins out

“Britain’s wealthiest people appear to get preferential treatment from HM Revenue & Customs and are not being properly pursued for outstanding tax bills, parliament’s spending watchdog has concluded.

HMRC’s failure to clamp down on rich tax dodgers is undermining confidence in the whole system, the public accounts committee said.

The highly critical report released on Friday examined HMRC’s specialist unit, which collects tax from high net-worth individuals with more than £20m. It found that “the amount of tax paid by this very wealthy group of individuals has actually fallen by £1bn since the unit was set up” in 2009 – even as tax receipts rose to £23bn.

Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said HMRC’s claims about the success of its strategy to deal with the very wealthy did not add up.

“Cosy terms such as ‘customer relationship manager’ and HMRC’s reluctance to be open add to the picture of arrangements that, while beyond the reach of ordinary taxpayers, are also ill-suited to the increasingly sophisticated methods the super rich can use to reduce the tax they pay,” she said.

“If the public are to have faith in the tax system then it must be seen to have fairness at its heart. It also needs to work properly. In our view, HMRC is failing on both counts.”

Tax officials calculated that there were about 6,500 high net-worth people in 2015-16, about one in every 5,000 taxpayers. In 2009, a specialist unit was set up to bring in more money from them.

MPs questioned the role of the specialist unit and some of its practices.

“We were not convinced by [HMRC’s] assertion that there is a clear line between giving its view on potential transactions and giving tax advice and we do not think there is enough clarity about what customer relationship managers can and cannot do,” the report says.

The committee pointed out that advice from officials to wealthy taxpayers was not recorded. “While calls from most taxpayers to HMRC call centres are recorded routinely, meetings and phone calls with high net-worth individuals are not recorded,” the report says.

The committee also highlighted concerns about “potential abuse” of image rights by top footballers and entertainers to minimise their tax liabilities. It confirmed that HMRC had “open inquiries” relating to the use of image rights by 43 footballers, 12 clubs and eight agents.

Committee members said they were appalled to learn that not all clubs were providing HMRC with the data it required under the terms of a voluntary agreement with the Premier League.

However, they praised HMRC’s managers for trying take action against the clubs. “We were encouraged by the evidence HMRC’s senior management gave to the committee on image rights and we look forward to news of meaningful action in this area.”

HMRC said the pursuit of high net-worth individuals had resulted in the collection of an additional £2.5bn in revenues. But it was unable to explain why the income tax they paid fell by 20% – from £4.5bn in 2009-10 to £3.5bn in 2014-15 – when the overall income tax take rose to £23bn.

The committee said about a third of the individuals concerned were likely to be under inquiry by HMRC for unpaid tax – with cases with a potential value of £1.9bn currently under investigation.

However, the report found HMRC had a “dismal record” when it came to prosecuting the very wealthy for tax fraud in the criminal courts.

In the five years to 31 March 2016, it completed just 72 fraud investigations into high net-worth individuals, with all but two having been dealt with using its civil powers. Only one case resulted in a successful criminal prosecution.

Of the 850 penalties issued to the very wealthy since 2012, the average charge was £10,500 – a figure the committee said was likely to be too small to act as a deterrent.

The problem was likely to become more acute because wealthy people were moving from off-the-peg tax avoidance schemes – the “high street equivalent of Primark or Next” – to bespoke “made-to-measure Savile Row” arrangements, the report says.

An HMRC spokesperson denied there was preferential treatment for the rich: “There is absolutely no special treatment for the wealthy and, in fact, we give them additional scrutiny, with one-to-one marking by HMRC’s specialist tax collectors to ensure that they pay everything they owe, just like the rest of us do. We have secured an additional £2.5bn from the very wealthiest since 2010.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/uks-super-rich-appear-to-get-special-deal-from-hmrc-says-watchdog?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Development Management Committee, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Save Our Sidmouth press release on PegasusLife contract

“PRESS STATEMENT

EA/2016/0279-0280 East Devon District Council v Information Commissioner

It is well over a year since Freedom of Information requests were made to have key EDDC documents published – the contract with developer Pegasus to buy the Knowle site and the agent’s report on the bidding process and sale.

EDDC refused to publish these, even after being told to by the Information Commissioner. But, now that the case has gone to Tribunal, it has decided to release the documents.

But why now?

What is very clear is that the release of the contract and agent’s report is happening only now that Pegasus’ planning application for Knowle has been considered.

As the EDDC press release makes clear: “With the PegasusLife planning application having been refused, it is considered that this sensitivity has now been reduced and that publication of the information is acceptable.”

And this is very much the point.

Not only was the leadership at EDDC keeping this ‘sensitive’ information from the public – it did not want its own Councillors to know what was in the contract and the bidding process. What is particularly alarming is that the leadership at EDDC hid these details from the planning committee (the DMC) before it made its decision over Knowle.

Looking at the details, the documents reveal the following:

> The agent warned that the development might be perceived by the planning committee as ‘over development’. As they said: “If this is the case, then the application may lead to refusal, delay or in the worst case prevent the relocation of the Council’s offices.”

> The agent also said that “Pegasus is not making any allowance for affordable housing or 106 contributions, as they are classing it as C2”. In other words, the plans were always about classifying the development as C2 (a care home) and not C3, which would mean paying for affordable housing.

> Finally, Pegasus were not prepared to offer significant ‘overage’ – meaning that EDDC would not be able to ‘claw back’ any excess profits Pegasus might make.

But what is particularly disturbing is what these documents reveal about how EDDC operates:

> From the outset, Planning Officers challenged the C2 designation and the scale of development and clearly wanted to give the site C3 status – but later they changed their mind and recommended approval of the Pegasus plans.

> In which case, the DMC have been totally vindicated in their decision to reject the planning application. But we only know this now that the contract and bidding process have been revealed.

> Had the Full Council been aware of the terms of the deal with Pegasus – for example, no significant overage – then then their approval of Pegasus as the ‘preferred developer’ might not have been forthcoming.

> The Information Commissioner insisted that EDDC reveal the contract and negotiations to the public. But what is particularly reprehensible is that the leadership at EDDC refused to reveal these crucial details to their own Councillors.

We now have to ask how the Council will respond – in particular, whether they will want some answers as to how the whole process was mismanaged.

And we have to ask why once again the leadership at EDDC continue to be so secretive in their dealings over the Knowle relocation project – and whether they are going to act on their promise to be truly open and transparent – with both the public and their own Councillors.”

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus_26.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Those LEP Board jobs …

“Board Members must declare any involvement with any of the delivery partners or roles or interests with beneficiaries and operate in accordance with the Nolan Principals of public life and the company’s Articles of Association.

This will involve taking no part in any decision votes where an interest exists. The adoption of the Nolan Principals ensures full openness and integrity in the way the Board sets its priorities.

These roles are un-remunerated. Expenses are only paid for exceptional expenditure for LEP commitments outside our area.

Click to access HotSW-LEP-CIC-Director-Final.pdf

The only problem is – we don’t get to know who voted on what, who declared an interest and why and who abstained – as the public record of meetings ( notes rather than minutes) do not record them.

Not to mention that agendas are not explicit – try to find the agenda item or minutes of the 26% salary increase for the LEP CEO – good luck and good hunting!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Development Management Committee, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Infrastructure and CIL, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Section 106, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Transparency

“Knowle relocation project: full Pegasus contract published”

Some VERY VERY interesting information!

It seems that PegasusLife had no plans to pay any Section 106 contributions, or Community Infrastructure Levy.

The PegasusLife contract that would have been signed had the DMC not refused planning permission and the Savill’s report on how the company got it is detailed in full here:

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus.html

Where further revelations are promised.

Sidmouth – indeed the whole district – should thank Jeremy Woodward, who worked tirelessly to get this information.

The Information Commissioner had to threaten EDDC with the possibility of being in contempt of court when they issued their Decision Notice forcing publication, after an appeal from EDDC that they should not be made to issue it or at least not without without so much redaction it would likely be pointless. EDDC had been planning to appeal the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice but suddenly withdrew this action – presumably knowing it would not succeed.

EDDC then issued a press release saying that all the hours and hours they must have spent opposing publication “cost nothing” as it was only officer time.

Owl wonders which senior officers work for nothing!

This sorry tale should be examined by EDDC’s Scrutiny Committee forthwith.