“Us versus Them – The New World” – tomorrow, 9 am, Radio 4

“Us Versus Them – The New World”, Radio 4, tomorrow 9 am:

Political movements which proclaim themselves as anti-elitist challengers to the mainstream establishment have been achieving success, from Brexit campaigners to Donald Trump and various European parties.

John Harris explores the reasons behind this international phenomenon, examines the motivating forces for the anxiety and anger of voters, and considers the response of the political establishment in this new era.”

To be followed same time next week by:

“It’s the Demography, Stupid!
The New World

How is population change transforming our world?

Think of a python swallowing a pig: a big bulge makes its way slowly down the snake from the head end to the other end. That’s a bit like what’s happened to the UK demographically.

The baby boom generation – which has changed Britain politically, culturally and economically – is now retiring. That means a large bulge of pensioners with big implications for the generations that come behind them. Other advanced economies face a similar challenge and emerging economies – most notably China – will be dealing with an ageing bulge themselves soon.

But in Africa, the bulge is at the other end. A very young generation is about to make its way through the snake.

Former government minister David Willetts, now executive chair of the Resolution Foundation, wrestles with this python of population change.

What will these challenges of both ageing and very young populations mean for the world?
What are the implications for future migration patterns, for geopolitics and for global economic growth?

This programme is part of a special week of programmes for the first week of 2017, examining major forces which are changing the world around us.”

Hernandez thinks ” negative press” on election expenses allegations were good for her!

When does spin become bovine excrement? AND she says she is “not nationally media trained” yet was employed as a campaign manager for the Tories!

” … Back in October last year, when Ms Hernandez had not been contacted by West Mercia Police regarding the investigation, she spoke about the impact the negative press has had on her.

“This negative publicity has been a very helpful process because it’s made me approachable, it means that people will ask for help,” she said at the time. “It’s got to the point actually where I’m not seeing it as a bad thing.

“When I’ve gone out in the public domain I’ve had a lot of people come and say I feel sorry for you, and I’ve never felt more loved in my life.

“It was like a baptism of fire. I’m not nationally media trained, I don’t want people to think I’m shying away from them.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/crime-chief-interviewed-by-police-investigating-election-expenses-allegations/story-30027908-detail/story.html

“Outcry after Republicans vote to dismantle independent ethics body”

Well, we know all about this in Devon – we could probably give Trump some tips!

“House Republicans have gutted an independent ethics watchdog, putting it under their own control, in a secret ballot hours before the new Congress convened for the first time.

The unheralded vote severely weakens the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which was set up after a lobbying scandal in 2008 to investigate corruption allegations against members of Congress. The move, led by the head of the House judiciary committee, defied the Republican congressional leadership and was reportedly supported by several legislators currently under OCE scrutiny.

The amendment was voted through by the House Republican conference over the New Year’s holiday with no prior notice or debate and inserted in a broad rules package the House will vote for on Tuesday. It turns the formerly independent OCE into the Office of Congressional Complaint Review, a subordinate body to the House Ethics Committee, which is currently run by the Republican majority and has a long history of overlooking charges of malfeasance by lawmakers.

The new body will not be able to receive anonymous tips from members of Congress or make its findings public.

The vote comes at a time when the Republicans control all three branches of government and are seeking to remove some of the residual constraints on their powers. The rules package to be voted through on Tuesday, for example, will limit the ability of the Democratic minority to block legislation like the repeal of Obama’s Affordable Care Act by staging a filibuster.

It also comes at a time when president-elect Trump is attempting to fend off scrutiny over multiple conflicts of interests questions arising from his bid to keep his business empire in his family’s hands even after he takes office on 20 January.

The House Republican vote triggered a wave of outrage from Democrats and government ethics specialists.

“Undermining the independence of the House’s Office of Congressional Ethics would create a serious risk to members of Congress, who rely on OCE for fair, nonpartisan investigations, and to the American people, who expect their representatives to meet their legal and ethical obligations,” Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, ethics counsels to Barack Obama and George W Bush respectively, argued in a joint statement.

“If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining OCE it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated.”

The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, said: “Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Pelosi said in a statement.

“Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”

Goodlatte defended the vote.

“The amendment builds upon and strengthens the existing Office of

Congressional Ethics by maintaining its primary area of focus of accepting and reviewing complaints from the public and referring them, if appropriate, to the Committee on Ethics,” the judiciary committee chairman said in a statement.

Goodlatte did not explain how the OCE had been strengthened by being stripped of its independence and stopped from making public statements.

The OCE was set up in 2008 after a string of corruption scandals involving two Republican politicians and a Democrat. Former congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a California Republican, served more than seven years in prison on bribery and other charges.

Ohio Republican congressman Bob Ney pleaded guilty to corruption charges and a Louisiana Democrat and former congressman, William Jefferson, was convicted on corruption in a separate case.”

“Musical Council Boundaries”

“When the music stops, your local council leader will be here to tell you a story [1]

First, there was “devolution” for the Heart of the South West, which wasn’t devolution at all because it would have sucked powers upwards from localities to a vast “combined authority” covering all of Devon and Somerset, including Plymouth and Torbay [2].

Then came the idea for a Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board (the GEGDB), which would be a joint strategic authority made up of Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge Councils [3]. Joint authorities are in practice run by their officers, not councillors, because the officers negotiate a common acceptable position on a given issue and then serve it up the councillors as the only available option that the four councils will agree on.

Finally (or perhaps not), proposals for a “South Devon” unitary council leaked out last week. This would be an all-purpose council covering East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge, Torbay and Plymouth and, possibly, South Hams (sorry, Mid Devon, you’re out), discharging all existing district council functions plus those of Devon County Council within the new unitary area. Such evidence as is there is suggests the prime movers appear to be Exeter and Plymouth, if only because they refused to back further moves to support the “devolution” proposals.

The Exeter Green Party has written to the leader of Exeter City Council asking the following questions:

What mandate does the City Council have from the residents it serves to:
(a) attempt to reorganise local government decision-making structures?

(b) propose arrangements which would suck key decisions upwards from the elected representatives

of the people of Exeter to a new superior authority – the GEGDB – which would not be directly elected?

(c) propose a strategic authority – the GEGDB – which on the evidence of the 8 November paper would focus solely on economic growth to the exclusion of social and environmental considerations?

When does the City Council plan to publicise its thinking and actively consult residents and businesses on whether they actually want new local government arrangements and, if so, on the form they should take and how any new body might be fully accountable to local people?

It seems clear that the option favoured by Exeter and Plymouth is the South Devon unitary authority. Central government is believed to be offering £1 billion if the unitary is established, complete with an elected mayor. We don’t know what the money would be targeted at – improving public services, infrastructure, or grants to businesses? But a bribe’s a bribe.

A directly elected authority – which is what the unitary would be – is certainly preferable in democratic terms to the other options. But it would be a huge area, currently represented by 237 councillors elected by 105 wards (and that’s without South Hams). So a workable sized council will require a massive cull of elected members (no wonder the leaderships have been playing their cards close to their chests), leading to a weakening of the links between people and their councillors. On present ward boundaries, based on the most recent election results, 123 of the councillors would be Tories – a small majority, which gives pause for thought as to why Labour-run Exeter is so keen on the idea? Of course the new council could be a pathfinder, to be elected by proportional representation, which would change the political balance considerably. Look it’s a pig up there.

Many, many more questions. And meanwhile energy is being diverted away from service improvements into a potentially massive reorganisation. It still feels like the “old politics”. For the time being, we have to await the answers to the Green Party’s highly pertinent questions.

NOTES

[1] You have to have been an aficionado of BBC Radio Children’s Hour in the 1950s to understand the reference!

[2] See my post https://petercleasby.com/2016/09/30/devolution-is-not-control/

[3] The proposals adopted by Exeter City Council’s Executive are at http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/documents/g4903/Public%20reports%20pack%2008th-Nov-2016%2017.30%20Executive.pdf?T=10, page 73.”

https://agreeninexeter.com/2016/12/14/musical-council-boundaries/

High Court backs approach taken by East Devon District Council in standards case

“A decision taken by East Devon District Council as principal authority over a code of conduct breach by a town councillor and the sanctions it recommended – including a requirement for training – was lawful, a High Court judge has ruled.

However, in Taylor v Honiton Town Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 3307 Mr Justice Edis quashed additional sanctions imposed by Honiton on the claimant, Cllr John Taylor, over and above those recommended by the district.

The case arose after Cllr Taylor, a member of the town council since 2007, became concerned about the funding of a major project in Honiton, the building of the ‘Beehive Community Centre’.

The councillor published a letter in January 2015 about the town council’s extension of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) by £98,000 to cover a shortfall. It included an allegation of impropriety and a request for a police investigation.

Honiton’s town clerk complained that she had been slandered in the letter, details of which had appeared in a local paper, and her professional reputation had been affected.

Attempts by East Devon’s monitoring officer to resolve the complaint informally were unsuccessful as Cllr Taylor refused to make an unreserved apology. East Devon therefore asked Tim Darsley to investigate.

Mr Darsley concluded on the facts that statements made by the councillor had been inaccurate and given a misleading account of what the town clerk had said at the meeting about the PWLB loan extension. His findings also included that there was no evidence that the loan application was in any way illegal and was used for an improper purpose.

In his report Mr Darsley also found that Cllr Taylor had publicly made claims of illegality and impropriety associated with the town clerk and that, in the absence of any reasonable justification for his claims, this constituted a failure to treat her with respect.

The standards hearings sub-committee at East Devon subsequently found Cllr Taylor to have breached a paragraph of the code of conduct because he had not treated the town clerk with respect in that he had publicly accused her of criminal behaviour, namely conspiracy to obtain a loan by deception in that its true purpose was misstated on the application.

On advice from its officers, the sub-committee recommended that the town council:

censure Cllr Taylor for his breach of the code of conduct;
publish the findings of the hearing sub-committee. (East Devon would anyway publish the findings on its own website as a matter of procedure).
instruct East Devon’s monitoring officer to arrange training for Cllr Taylor in respect of the code of conduct and councillor conduct – such training by the end of the current financial year (“the training requirement”).

Honiton went on to impose the sanctions recommended by East Devon and also applied a new policy on code of conduct sanctions it had adopted in October 2015.

These additional measures – to remain in place until Cllr Taylor had complied with the training requirement – involved:

(i) A restriction preventing the claimant/Cllr Taylor from speaking at any meeting including the council meeting.
(ii) The removal of Cllr Tayor from the five committees and working groups on which he served.
(iii) A restriction preventing him from attending any meeting as a member of the public together with a restriction from speaking as a member of the public at any meeting.
(iv) A restriction preventing Cllr Taylor from attending at the council offices unless accompanied by the mayor of the council.

Cllr Taylor brought judicial review proceedings on the following grounds: illegality; the sanctions not being imposed on a proper basis in the light of East Devon’s conclusions on the investigation; and the hearing before the standards sub-committee being procedurally unfair.

Honiton subsequently withdrew all sanctions imposed on Cllr Taylor but said it would consider the issue of sanctions again after any fresh decision by East Devon, and/or the outcome of the judicial review proceedings against the district.

In the end the proceedings were issued against the town council. (East Devon becoming an interested party because it wanted to establish that imposing a requirement for training on Cllr Taylor was lawful).

Honiton expressed the hope that the claim would be withdrawn because, amongst other things, it agreed that its decision of 14 December 2015 should be treated as never having been made. It also agreed that it would not seek to re-impose all of the sanctions that were imposed.

Mr Justice Edis decided, given Honiton’s approach, he would address two questions:

whether Honiton was bound by the findings of East Devon as to the facts and as to whether there was a breach of the code.

“This is because the Decision actually involves two stages: breach and sanction. Honiton has certainly withdrawn the second, but says that it is still bound by the first. The point is not academic to the Decision and to the order which should be made.

Whatever the outcome of this issue, I will quash the Decision. This does not mean that the route to that result is irrelevant. If the claimant is right I will quash the finding that there was a breach of the Code because no such finding was made by Honiton which wrongly simply adopted East Devon’s decision. If Honiton and East Devon are right I will quash the Decision because Honiton has conceded that it wrongly included sanctions which are beyond its powers.”

Mr Justice Edis decided that the effect of provisions in the Localism Act 2011 was to place the duty of investigation and decision of allegations against members of Honiton on East Devon as principal authority.

“The arrangements for decision making must involve independent persons and it would frustrate that important safeguard to hold that a parish council had a duty to reconsider the principal authority’s decision and substitute its own if it chose to do so,” he said.

The judge noted that in this case East Devon had decided the issue of breach but made recommendations to Honiton about what action it should take consequent on that finding. Honiton then took the decision on sanctions.

“The challenge in these proceedings is based on the proposition that East Devon’s role was limited to that of investigator and adviser on both questions and contends that Honiton was the ultimate decision maker on both issues. This appears to me to be clearly wrong….,” Mr Justice Edis said.
“A natural reading of the Act gives decision making power to the principal authority and requires it to have arrangements for the exercise of that power in place. It would make a nonsense of that scheme if the parish council were able to take its own decision without having any of those arrangements in place.”

The judge added: “The whole point of the scheme is to remove decision making powers and duties from very small authorities which do not have the resources to manage them effectively and who may be so small that any real independence is unattainable. I therefore reject the challenge.”

Mr Justice Edis added that in doing so, he declined to decide that the Act required the splitting of the decisions as between breach and sanction between the two relevant authorities in the way in which this happened in Cllr Taylor’s case.

On the imposition of a training requirement, Mr Justice Edis said Honiton was under a statutory duty to maintain high standards of conduct under s.27(1) of the Localism Act 2011 in relation to its members. Section 27(2) required it to have a code of its own or to adopt that of East Devon.
The judge said: “The existence of a code of conduct is regarded by Parliament as an important aspect of the maintenance of standards. It appears to me to be proportionate to a significant breach of it for a relevant authority to require the person in breach to be trained in its meaning and application.

“There is no point in having a code of conduct if members of the authority are not aware of its meaning and effect and where a member has demonstrated by his conduct that this is the case, a reasonable amount of training appears to be a sensible measure. A local authority should be able to require its members to undertake training which is designed to enable them to fulfil their public functions safely and effectively.”

Mr Justice Edis said it had been reasonably open to the decision maker to conclude that there had been a serious breach of the code.

He added: “There is no finding as to the claimant’s motives and it may be that he acted in good faith, believing that his statement about the town clerk was justified. However, it was not. He accused her of criminal conduct when there was not the slightest justification for doing so. This was a very serious error of judgement. Therefore, a requirement of training was proportionate.”

The judge noted that if such a requirement was made but the member refused to comply, the only sanction was publicity.

“Such conduct may reduce the confidence of the electorate in the member so that he or she is not re-elected. Equally, it may not,” he said. “That is a matter for the electorate to decide which it can do only if it has the relevant information. For these reasons I consider that it is open to a relevant authority exercising its power as contemplated by s.28(11) to take action following a failure to comply with a code of conduct to require the member to undertake training. That decision will usually be published and it will be open to the authority to publish what happens as a result of the requirement.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29497%3Ahigh-court-backs-approach-taken-by-district-council-in-standards-case&catid=59&Itemid=27

“Local” Enterprise Partnerships

The Guardian view on English local identities: a clash of cash against community

Editorial

A court case about whether Chesterfield can leave Derbyshire to become part of Sheffield [Local Enterprise Partnership] illuminates the inexorable wasting of English local government and identity.

Is Derbyshire in the north of England or the Midlands? The question is as old as the redrawing of the map of England following the Norman conquest. But it is no longer such a parochial or academic question as it may seem. Derbyshire’s dilemmas now illuminate what we mean by local democracy and local government in England more generally. That’s because the promotion of English city regions and the money being directed towards the northern powerhouse by the Treasury in London are making a nonsense of historic local identities as well as of England’s long but increasingly derelict traditions of locally rooted democratic municipalism.

Just before Christmas, the high court backed an objection by Derbyshire county council against efforts by Chesterfield, which is in the north of the county, to attach itself to the emerging city region of Sheffield, which comprises Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster, which are all historically part of the various iterations of Yorkshire, its ridings and its more modern subdivisions.

The court did this after Derbyshire complained that if Chesterfield were permitted to redefine itself as part of Sheffield, it would raise the question of whether the county of Derbyshire could be said to exist at all without its second largest town. The county’s case was reinforced by the fact that Chesterfield district has no actual border with Sheffield, from which it is separated by part of the North East Derbyshire district. If Chesterfield were to join Sheffield, it would become an enclave (or, from Sheffield’s viewpoint, an exclave) within its former county. It would be the Nagorno-Karabakh of the east Midlands, leaving the map of Derbyshire resembling nothing so much as a Barbara Hepworth sculpture.

From a financial rather than an identity perspective, Chesterfield’s move makes a certain sort of sense. Faced with continuing financial pressures to cut, sell off or simply abandon swaths of local government services that have existed for generations, English local authorities inevitably clutch at any cash straws they can. The city regions are one of the few straws on offer. They are due to receive £30m in new funding a year and to acquire new freedoms to shape local transport, planning and economic policy.

It is hardly surprising that Chesterfield’s defection was hatched and promoted at the council level, since councillors and council officers are in the frontline of struggling with these austerity-driven realities every day. While the councils did their deal, Chesterfield and Derbyshire opinion was barely considered, the high court ruled, so it must now be properly consulted and taken into account before any decision is taken. An online poll organised by the county council in August, five months after Chesterfield decided to join Sheffield, found 92% of respondents opposed to the move.

That is almost certainly because, for all its proximity to Sheffield, there has never been any serious tradition of Chesterfield regarding itself as part of Greater Sheffield, or of Sheffield seeing Chesterfield as part of South Yorkshire. Chesterfield is today what it has always been, an important town in north-east Derbyshire, famous for the twisted spire of its St Mary’s church, and for having had Tony Benn as its MP in the later period of his parliamentary career. Its possible marriage to the Sheffield city region is overwhelmingly rooted in perceived economic advantage rather than in history or public sentiment. The high court has therefore pitted economic survival against identity and democracy.

The Chesterfield-Sheffield question is of far more than local interest. Local identity matters everywhere. It is tenacious. It runs deeper than the economic or administrative convenience of a bureaucrat’s pen. County identities are medieval in origin but they lurk on in many modern consciousnesses. Ministers mess with them at their peril.

The argument about Derbyshire has only arisen because English local government is in such a desperate state. Austerity in the 2010s is completing the centralisation of local powers begun in the 1980s. Communities like Chesterfield are reduced to scrabbling for a share of the Treasury’s parachute drop of cash to the city regions.

Ministers may talk of a new era of municipal greatness, but it is a hollow sham as long as local authorities lack effective income-raising powers. Unless and until English devolution is reconceived as regions made up from existing counties, cities and boroughs, these arguments will continue, pitting community identity and democracy against economic inequalities and distortions enforced from Whitehall.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/28/the-guardian-view-on-english-local-identities-a-clash-of-cash-against-community

Bay FM interview: Skinner (EDDC) v MacAllister (SES)

Louise MacAllister, Spokesperson, Save Exmouth Seafront gives her view on the contest. Owl will be happy to publish Councillor Skinner’s riposte if received:

  • SES’s core aim is for independent public consultation before any further work goes ahead on the seafront.
  • EDDC’s consultations have been inadequate.
  • Cllr Megan Armstrong’s survey that SES supported showed that a majority do not want to see wholesale development on the seafront.
  • EDDC’s incompetence around the project has led to the seafront becoming derelict.
  • The spiralling costs of the project further demonstrate the incompetence of the Exmouth Regeneration Board.
  • That the Regeneration Board meet in secret only increases frustration and as such Ms MacAllister has been trying to arrange a Q&A session with Cllr Skinner, the chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Board.
  • Cllr Skinner gatecrashed a SES meeting, this is not public engagement.

Cllr Skinner, Chair, Exmouth Regeneration Board:

  • It is a three-phase development, it’s very exciting, we should be excited!
  • Phase three is ‘open for consultation’ we may even have a hotel?!
  • Existing tenants are blamed for delays.
  • It is REALLY, REALLY EXCITING!
  • Skinner thinks they have consulted extensively but – he doesn’t know the numbers.
  • This is a SERIOUS investment (thank god it’s not a joke investment!).
  • Correction – the ‘recent consultation’ with over 1000 participants that Howard Witts mentioned is in fact the seafront survey undertaken by independent Cllr Megan Armstrong, and which the regeneration board have resolutely ignored.
  • [Seems Skinner finds it amusing that the regeneration board meets in secret as he can be heard laughing while Howard is asking him about this].
  • The Premier Inn and Ocean are apparently architecturally superior and successful, ‘raising the bar in architecture’.

Other points:

  • Everything Skinner claims about his gatecrashing of an SES meeting is untrue, he was unwelcome and people made it clear he was unwelcome. Unfortunately the meeting was not chaired well and so he was enabled to carry on despite this. He was certainly not thanked or clapped as he claims in the interview.
  • The post-march SES meeting was not an open public meeting nor was it advertised as such, it was advertised as a meeting for SES supporters.
  • Cllr Skinner does not think it is Ms MacAllister’s responsibility as SES spokesperson to say that he should hold an open public meeting. SHE AGREES! It is HIS responsibility and he alone should be held accountable for his lack of public engagement she says. As someone who represents a group seeking transparency and openness she will continue to press for this even though it is not her responsibility.

Listen to Louise MacAllister

Listen to Cllr Skinner’s Response

“Toshiba seeks financial help with £8bn UK nuclear project” – a knock-on for EDF/Hinkley C?

Our Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership has put almost all OUR eggs into its nuclear egg basket. Not surprising when several of its board members have direct or indirect nuclear interests.

“Toshiba, the technology company at the centre of plans to build more nuclear reactors in Britain, is looking for outside help to fund its £8bn programme after a collapse in its share price.

The Japanese group is in talks with local financial institutions to support the construction of an atomic plant near the Sellafield facility in Cumbria, after running up losses following an accounting scandal.

The emergence of Toshiba’s problems will add to worries over Britain’s nuclear plans after the French energy group EDF, which plans to build the Hinkley Point C station in Somerset, dropped out of France’s CAC 40 index of leading shares.

There is widening concern in the City about the escalating costs of huge nuclear projects, which are damaging company share valuations and undermining the government’s commitment to new nuclear at a time when it has promised to phase out coal-fired power stations.

“It has become difficult for Toshiba to do this (fund the NuGen programme in the north-west of England) on its own,” one source told Reuters, which reported that Toshiba had hired HSBC bank to help find new funds.

On Monday, the Japanese financial regulator recommended that Toshiba be fined 7.37bn yen (£40m) for overstating profits and the share price of the company is down 40% since the start of the year.

Toshiba is a 60% shareholder in the NuGen project to build 3.4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity close to the Sellafield plant, where spent fuel is reprocessed.

Neither Toshiba nor NuGen, a partnership with Engie (formerly GDF Suez) of France, was available for comment. The cost of building three reactors designed by a Toshiba subsidiary, Westinghouse, was estimated two years ago at £8bn but experts believe that figure could have at least doubled. That is in line with the price tag for Hinkley, which EDF puts at £18bn.

The 3.2GW Somerset reactors, to be built by EDF with the help of Chinese state companies, have been given the go-ahead by the UK government but the project is awaiting the final investment decision from France.

This week EDF blamed the 85% holding by the French state and lack of free float shares for its removal from the CAC index. But many analysts in the City of London have released gloomy equity forecasts on EDF, fearing Hinkley might go over budget like the company’s Flamanville reactor project in Normandy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/10/toshiba-seeks-financial-help-with-8bn-uk-nuclear-project

Nuclear watchdog to be investigated by – watchdog!

“Nuclear safety watchdog under review after series of accidents

Whitehall is investigating the nuclear regulator after The Times revealed that several serious accidents had been dismissed as posing no safety risk.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has come under fire from experts who argue it is too close to the industry to police it rigorously.

Yesterday an investigation disclosed that the inadvertent discharge of a torpedo at a nuclear submarine docks in Plymouth, a complete power cut at the country’s nuclear weapons base and the contamination of at least 15 workers with radioactive material were among the events it had said were of no concern.

Officials at the Department for Work and Pensions, which is responsible for the ONR, are understood to be looking into whether the regulator is doing enough to keep the country’s reactors, nuclear processing sites and military bases safe.

Although the number of publicly acknowledged accidents has been stable for more than a decade, the rate of incidents judged to be “of no nuclear safety significance” has crept up to more than one a day over the last five years.

Between 2012 and 2015 these included three road accidents involving nuclear material, a dozen leaks and at least 30 fires as well as 70 anomalies on the Atomic Weapons Establishment site at Aldermaston near Reading.

The ONR has said that all of its safety classifications followed international guidelines and insisted that it remained a robust and independent regulator.

Nuclear experts, however, called on the government to launch a review. Stephen Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, said the news had reinforced his suspicions that “the first priority for the ONR is not to frighten the horses”.

He said the body had previously ignored warnings about the safety of extending the lifespan of the AGR, an old reactor design that is still in use at seven sites in the UK, as well as the reliability of the newer EPR model, the latest version of which is due to be installed at Hinkley Point C.

“Ironically, since they became an independent body rather than being part of the Health and Safety Executive [in 2014], they seem to have got worse,” Professor Thomas said. “Independence is just a cheap and easy way for government to wash its hands of its rightful responsibility.

“Independent regulators must be accountable to the public and if it is not through a democratically elected government, who is it through?”

Earlier this year the ONR appointed as its chief executive a career civil servant with no background in nuclear engineering. David Toke, reader in energy politics at the University of Aberdeen and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group, said this suggested that nuclear safety issues were a “low priority” for the organisation.

“Of course there should be more attention to this issue and a discussion about whether the de facto slide towards less nuclear safety in the UK is a good one,” he said.”

© Times Newspapers Limited 2016

East Devon Alliance: EDDC relocation “at any cost”

“East Devon District Council (EDDC) is leaving Sidmouth for new premises in Honiton and a renovated Exmouth Town Hall.

The latter is now vacant, but it will need work including a new boiler, rewiring and the removal of asbestos – renovations now estimated at £1,669,000, up from £1million in March 2015. [Mostly caused by EDDC doing their estimates and announcing projected estimated costs before commissioning a full structural survey which revealed nuerous expensive essential upgrades such as wiring, heating and insulation]

EDDC cabinet members last week agreed to accelerate the refurbishment so some key staff can relocate as early as November 2017.

Councillor Cathy Gardner told the Herald: “This truly is relocation at any price, because council tax payers will pick up the bill.”

The cabinet meeting heard that a new planning application to redevelop EDDC’s current HQ Knowle could be six months away or more after it refused PegasusLife’s bid for a 113-home retirement community earlier this month. The developer is yet to reveal if it will appeal the decision but the £7.5million it offered was intended to help fund the authority’s £9.2million [at the last estimate] relocation project.

Cllr Gardner said the project was initially sold to councillors as ‘cost neutral’ but is now costing taxpayers ‘over £2million and counting’ and cash will have to be borrowed. [This does not take into account building new offices for the EDDC Estates Department at Sidmouth’s Manstone Depot]

She added: “Proceeding with the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall weakens the bargaining position of the council with any purchaser of the Knowle – they know that the council is desperate to secure a sale.

“The cabinet approved this extra cost for Exmouth Town Hall without seeing an up-to-date report on the budget for the project overall. They have approved an increase in ignorance of the total costs.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “The council remains committed to relocating the rest of its staff into fit-for-purpose offices as soon as possible, despite the recent planning application for Knowle being rejected. The current budget and income projections for the overall project – taking into account both Exmouth and Heathpark – remain balanced. The council has a continued and reasonable expectation that relocation from Knowle will show significant savings compared to remaining in Sidmouth.

“The financial case will be tested again, as it was in March 2015 when the council decided to relocate.”

The decision was ratified at a full council meeting on Wednesday.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/in-the-press/20161228/sidmouth-herald-claims-eddc-is-relocating-from-sidmouth-at-any-cost/

“‘Cameron’s Cronies’ backlash: Nominated peers could have to prove they have ‘record of significant achievement’ “

(Un)fortunately, this will not include Hugo Swire – Cameron’s Old Etonian contemporary and holiday companion – who was only given a knighthood. OK for impressing social climbers but offering no further political influence.

“Theresa May’s ethics adviser has suggested aides and party donors nominated for peerages should be forced to prove their suitability in the wake of the ‘Cameron’s Cronies’ scandal.

Lord Bew, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told The Telegraph the idea of putting political appointments through rigorous interviews should be considered.

The crossbench peer said his committee was “very interested” in tighter safeguards to ensure that only those suitable to enter the House of Lords are picked.

However he warned that peers selected by the Prime Minister should not face identical criteria to those picked for the crossbench and said parties must be consulted on any change.

The reforms – which would amount to the biggest shake-up in the selection of peers for a generation – have been gaining traction in Parliament in recent weeks. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/camerons-cronies-backlash-nominated-peers-could-have-prove-have/

Bend those rules till they break, Mrs May – get YOUR cronies into top jobs

“Theresa May’s government has been accused of changing the rules on public appointments to make it easier in future for ministers to pick their political allies for senior jobs at the BBC and regulators such as Ofsted.

The new code on public appointments will give ministers greater powers over who oversees a raft of agencies, watchdogs and advisory committees, while weakening the involvement of the independent commissioner for public appointments, who scrutinises the system.

Labour said the changes, which will come into force on 1 January, represent a “power grab” by ministers and risk returning to the days of patronage and cronyism in public life.

Ministers have always had the final say over appointments to senior public sector jobs, advised by a panel that shortlists “appointable” people. However, independent assessors, chosen by the commissioner to oversee the most important competitions, will be abolished in favour of independent senior panel members picked by ministers.

Labour warns of return to cronyism amid public appointments review
The members will have to be independent of the departments and not currently politically active, but the commissioner will only have a consultative role.

Ministers will also be able to overrule the panel by choosing candidates not deemed to be appointable and have the right to dispense with an open competition without the permission of the commissioner, although they will have to consult with the watchdog and openly justify the decision. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/government-accused-power-grab-new-public-appointment-rules-bbc-ofsted

Tory councillors refuse spending scrutiny role and trust (vastly overspent) officers

East Devon Alliance and other Independent councillors show their mettle – Tories show their inadequacy.

There was a distinct lack of seasonal goodwill last night at the full meeting of East Devon District Council which was well attended by the public.

Four speakers from Exmouth lambasted the council for the mega-shambles emerging over the development of Queen’s Drive.

There was anger that the wishes of local people for a town centre upgrade and a modest refurbishment of the seafront had been ignored. Replaced, without consultation, by a grandiose council project to commercialise the seafront with shops, a cinema and blocks of flats.

Two Sidmouth residents kept up the pressure. One questioned the financial competence of the Council with relocation costs spiralling: £600,000 more for Exmouth Town Hall, £400,000 more for Knowle.

Another asked the Chief Executive to warn planning committee councillors against bias in favour of any future application to develop the Knowle because it would advance the relocation project. This seemed to have happened at the December 6th DMC meeting, but the CEO was unconcerned.

When councillors came to quiz council leaders it was noticeable that not a single Conservative asked a question.

But there was a barrage from Independents and Lib Dems. The refrain was that the leadership never gave straight answers to questions about its accounting for public money; it was incompetent in keeping costs under control, and it kept councillors in the dark about what was happening.

East Devon Alliance Independent councillor Megan Armstrong prised out of Philip Skinner, Exmouth “regeneration” portfolio holder, the admission that there would be no independent public consultation on Queen’s Drive which over 4000 Exmouthians had voted for in a Town Poll.

Nonetheless, EDDC would be spending over £60000 to get renewed planning permission for the development.

East Devon Alliance Independent Councillor Cathy Gardner grew increasingly frustrated at Leader Paul Diviani’s failure to answer questions. Why was the contact with Pegasus life for the sale of the Knowle kept secret? Why was the project manager of the Queen’s Drive affair not sacked for “ineptitude”? And what action would be taken against the same officer who had publicly expressed personal frustration at the refusal of the Pegasus Life planning application for the Knowle?

Eileen Wragg (Lib Dem) questioned where the £3million to move the roadway in Queen’s Drive was coming from. She knew that County did not have funds ear-marked. The Chief Executive admitted that applications had gone out for funding, but nothing had been agreed yet.

Rob Longhurst (Independent) said the leadership seemed to think £600000 more on Exmouth Town Hall was “small money” that didn’t require detailed accounting. “I like to see numbers”, he added. Support came from fellow independent Roger Giles who quoted an earlier Council Leader Peter Halse who said when it came to costings it was not good enough for the council leaders to say “Just trust us”.

Finally, Cllr Longhurst, seconded by Independent Ben Ingham, proposed an amendment that councillors should be updated every six months with detailed costings of the council’s projects.

“Unnecessary!” chorused a succession of Tory councillors. They said leave it to the internal auditors Southwest Audit Partnership, forgetting, perhaps, that SWAP was strongly criticised in 2013 for an “anodyne” report on the governance implications of the Graham Brown affair which suggested it was in too cosy a relationship with Council leaders.

A vote on the amendment was lost with 30 Tory councillors voting in a block against it.

Bleating sounds could be heard coming from a member of the public!

EDDC expenditure on consultants and agency staff2015/16 almost £2 million

Consultants £1,430,867
Agency staff £477,119

Total £1,907,986

A full list of payees appears with the appendix. Relocation supremo Steve Pratten (Aecom) takes up a large chunk.

But what is the £11,000 paid to Monitoring Officer and Legal Officer Henry Gordon-Lennox as “Legal Services Retainer”? Surely he is not employed by an agency?

Click to access item-10-consultants-fees-with-appendices.pdf

Public Accounts Committee warns on devolution spending scrutiny

Here in Devon and Somerset, we have no idea what our LEP has spent our money on in the past (only vague headlines), no idea who is spending it on what now. We don’t even know how many staff the LEP has, how much they and board members are paid or even where they work from. They boast about securing “economic growth” yet we have no evidence that they are making any impact whatsoever.

Each member of the LEP board has a post that wants to attract “growth funding” to themselves – be it the Chairman of Midas builders or the MD of Supacat which has designs on getting more involved in the nuclear industry – each one has a vested interest in getting the biggest possible slice of the growth cake and ensuring that, even if they don’t get the biggest slice, that there is no cake left for anyone else.

Here is what the Public Accounts Committee has to say.

Additionally, someone somewhere ensured that our LEP was top-heavy with unelected business people and light on local politicians who could at least be voted out. Whose bright idea was that?

“The Public Accounts Committee has issued a renewed warning over scrutiny in devolution deals, saying the government has still not set out how combined authority mayors will be held accountable for public money.

“MPs called on the government to specify what it is trying to achieve through devolution and communicate this clearly to citizens and service users.

The Devolution in England report said that every pound spent by a combined authority mayor – which will be elected for the first time next May – must be traceable by parliament to maintain transparency and accountability.

For example, the review highlighted the ‘opaque’ nature of accountability for the activities of local enterprise partnerships – designed to bring together the public and private sector – which are currently negotiating a revised round of local growth deals funded to the tune of £12bn over five years.

The Department for Communities and Local Government must also do more to demonstrate the link between devolution and economic growth, according to the committee.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said the government’s devolution plans in England have significant implications for the lives of millions of people. …

… Hillier said the government still has serious questions to answer about the benefits of these proposals as “generalisations about the potential benefits” would not be enough.

“The public care about the future of vital local services; about jobs, housing, education,” she stated.

“They want to know not just who is spending their money and to what end, but also how well it is being spent.

“When things go wrong, they want to know who is responsible and how they will be held to account. And, when they elect their first mayors in May, they want to be confident the government has done all it can to protect their interests.”

According to the MPs, there is a “considerable scope for tension” between local government, which is required to deliver and maintain services within a devolved budget, and central government, which provides funding in areas such as skills and transport, and in Greater Manchester, health.

Central government must not “absolve itself of its responsibility to ensure that devolved areas receive adequate funding for sustainable services”, the report stated, and DCLG in particular must ensure devolution benefits work for all local areas and not just central zones or key cities covered by combined authorities, says the committee.

“The government’s annual report on devolution, published this month, does nothing to address these concerns nor to set out a detailed strategic vision for the programme,” Hillier added.

“Every pound of public money spent by an elected mayor, local enterprise partnership or other body must be a pound Parliament can trace. Spending must face robust scrutiny.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/12/pac-repeats-warning-importance-devolution-scrutiny

Reader comment on “Golden Triangle” devolution bid

A reader comment on a Western Morning News article that Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay are talking (in secret) about setting up their own Local Enterprise Partnership”:

“Even though we seem to be dragging ourselves free of the EU, we still seem to be stuck with the EU’s ‘regional’ policies – as imposed by John Prescott with his Regional Assemblies and Regional Development Agencies.

The EU were insistent that our cities should be the economic drivers for regions, and that we should have figureheads – regional Metro Mayors.

The objective is always the same – rather than decentralising power to regions, whole parcels of cities, rural towns, and villages become subject to one imposed rule, with little real democratic accountability; the bigger the authority, the less accountability at local level.

Our council apparatchiks will jump at the chance to build their empires, puff up their importance, and vastly improve their bank balances while they are at it. Out of sight, out of mind – the manufacturers of brown envelopes will be rubbing their hands in anticipation.

As with Police and Crime Commissioners, there will not be any enthusiasm for these positions; hardly anybody will vote; they will be politically tribal and not representative; and they will be distant from ‘the people’. As a result, they will be hugely disliked and distrusted. No change there then.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/plymouth-defends-secret-talks-over-super-mayor/story-29977395-detail/story.html

The ExTorPly* LEP talks continue

ExTorPly = Exeter, Torquay, Plymouth. It gets complicated if it takes in more councils!

Owl suggests it might be called “Rip the Heart out of the South West LEP”, though the acronym RTHOOTSW LEP is a little clunky, even if it includes the word “hoot” in it. Still not happy about the “Golden Triangle LEP” for obvious reasons! But good to see (part of) Devon standing on its own feet, avoiding being sucked into an LEP where Hinkley C in Somerset takes most of the very little money on offer.

Council leaders in Exeter and Plymouth say they are convinced that a bid for devolution for Devon and Somerset is doomed to fail.

Fifteen councils across the region have been working on a joint bid to take over powers and funding now controlled by Whitehall.

But the Heart of the South West has reached a sticking point over the Government’s insistence that significant devolution will require an elected mayor for the region.

As we reported last week, Plymouth and Exeter refused to go along with a vote for all 15 councils to work exclusively with the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership.

David Thomas, the leader of Torbay’s Conservatives, said later that they too would support a rival bid with Plymouth and Exeter.

The two councils said they had written to colleagues across the region “to assure them of their ongoing commitment to joint working to improve skills, productivity and infrastructure in the Heart of the South West”.

They said they were fully committed to working with the other 13 councils on a joint productivity plan – but would continue to explore other opportunities.

“We believe that there will be no significant devolution deal for tuhe Heart of the South West given the lack of a consensus on the issue of an elected mayor/leader with responsibility for receiving devolved powers and financial resources from Whitehall,” they said.

“The Government’s position on this has been very clearly outlined by the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid.

“We feel it would be remiss of us not to explore the sub-regional opportunities for further and faster delivery of economic growth with a deal that doesn’t rule out an elected mayor/leader as described above.”

A meeting of the Heart of the South West leaders’ and chief executives’ group on Friday heard that Plymouth and Exeter councils had met with Torbay to discuss the potential to work together on a sub-regional level to drive economic growth further and faster.

Today’s letter defends the “exploratory discussions”, which were not attended by Torbay’s Mayor, Gordon Oliver.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/plymouth-defends-secret-talks-over-super-mayor/story-29977395-detail/story.html

“Save our Hospital Services” calls for abolitition of “Success Regime”

ON THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY

The ‘Success Regime’/STP Team in Devon

Save Our Hospital Services Devon (SOHS) is today calling for the abolition of NHS England’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for Wider Devon and the suspension of the so-called Success Regime for North, East and West Devon that is now an integral part.

“These two programmes are false, flawed and fraudulent,” says Dave Clinch, a spokesperson for SOHS in North Devon. “They are riddled with public-private, professional-personal conflicts of interest.”

SOHS Devon points out that the Case for Change document on which both the Success Regime and the STP are based was produced by a private-owned health service consultancy, Carnall Farrar. One of the consultancy’s founding partners, Dame Ruth Carnall, is now the ‘Independent’ Chair of the Success Regime pushing through the STP in Devon.

“SOHS Devon believes that there is a pre-determined agenda in Devon to cut services, limit access and reduce demand by redefining medical need to ensure that government cuts are carried out. How can Ms Carnall, who produced the blueprint for the STP, be considered remotely independent in assessing our needs or services to meet them?” asks Mr Clinch.

SOHS Devon points out that to push their agenda for cuts to NHS services and staff, the Success Regime/STP team will have been allocated £7.4 million between 2015 and 2017. Some of this funding has been used to recruit senior staff from those same services they plan to cut; for example, Andy Robinson, who left his role as Director of Finance at the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust to join the Success Regime in Exeter. What is more, Mr Robinson happens to be the partner of the Chief Executive of the Trust, Alison Diamond.

“Professional or personal? How can this relationship avoid directly impacting on the life-and-death decisions now being made?” says Mr Clinch.

Meanwhile, the proposed relocation to Exeter of acute services based at North Devon District Hospital (NDDH) is being overseen by the Success Regime’s Lead Chief Executive Angela Pedder, the former CEO of the Royal Devon & Exeter Foundation Trust.

“How can she be considered unbiased given her former role?” says Mr Clinch. It’s no coincidence that RD&E needs to cover a much bigger deficit than NDDH in Barnstaple.”

On top of this, the two leads on the STP’s Acute Services Review programme are both from hospitals in South Devon, namely Derriford in Plymouth and Torbay in Torquay. SOHS Devon can find no evidence that they are talking to the clinicians working in acute services at NDDH. And the fact is, if the proposed acute services cuts go ahead, people here in North Devon will suffer and die.

ENDS

The great LEP scandal – part 3: Government says LEPs should investigate themselves!

“Officials should be banned from taking cash from any public bodies they run following a Daily Mail investigation, Dame Margaret Hodge declared last night.

The former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said the law must be changed to stop board members benefiting from grants.

Her intervention came amid fury over the Daily Mail’s revelations that officials responsible for billions of pounds have been handing money to their colleagues’ firms.

The Commons Business Committee last night said it was investigating the ‘extremely serious issues’ – after the Public Accounts Committee also launched a major probe.

Officials oversaw the payments after getting places on boards called Local Enterprise Partnerships – or LEPs – which consist of business bosses and council chiefs and were put in charge of £7.3billion meant to kick-start economic growth.

Reporters found LEPs have made at least 276 payments to their own board members, their companies, or projects from which they stand to benefit. One received £1million for his call centre, while another got £13,000 of payments towards events at his family castle.

‘There is a quite clear and simple answer to all this – you outlaw it,’ Dame Margaret said last night. ‘Where you’ve got a conflict of interest, you have to choose – you either are a member of the board or you want to make money out of it.’

Last night the Government insisted LEPs should investigate any suspect payments themselves – and that this was not the Government’s job.

But MPs said this was ‘simply not good enough.’ Dame Margaret criticised the Government for failing to properly scrutinise LEP spending.

‘It is your money and my money that they are spending,’ she added.
‘When Government sets up these fragmented structures it always fails to put in place proper regulatory systems. It’s because the Government doesn’t care. What the Mail has uncovered doesn’t surprise me, what it does is depress me.’

Incredibly, there are currently no rules to prevent LEP officials from using the money they have received to award grants for their firms’ benefit, or to make decisions in secret.

LEPs have failed to account for at least £3.7billion of the cash they have been given by the Government, in their responses to Freedom of Information requests by the Mail.

The revelations are a major embarrassment for Chancellor Philip Hammond, who handed LEPs another £1.8billion in last month’s Autumn Statement. Meg Hillier, Public Accounts Committee chairman, has vowed a major probe into the payments and the ‘utterly unacceptable’ lack of transparency. She said the boards were acting like ‘a cosy little club’.

Iain Wright, chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee, said last night: ‘These are extremely serious allegations. LEPs have been given stewardship of massive amounts of public money. There appears to have been some appalling failings in accountability at some LEPs. We will want to know how they are spending public money and who is checking that they are spending it responsibly.’

Tory MP Philip Hollobone represents Kettering in Northamptonshire, the county where a banker on the LEP board received nearly £13,000 for his family’s Norman castle. He added: ‘The Daily Mail has played a crucial role in bringing these issues to national attention and is providing much needed scrutiny about how this money is being spent.

‘But it shouldn’t have been up to the Daily Mail. It is clear when LEPs were set up proper systems for scrutiny were not established. I would welcome further investigations from organisations like the PAC.’

The TaxPayers’ Alliance accused Government of ‘frittering away taxpayers’ hard-earned money’. Chief executive John O’Connell added: ‘Many of these cases quite frankly do not pass the smell test.’

Downing Street insisted it was ‘for those councils and partnerships’ to investigate ‘individual allegations’. But every council contacted by the Mail over suspect LEP payments has refused to investigate them.

Many councils and LEPs share the same staff, and when contacted by the Mail many councils offered joint statements with the LEP – apparently failing to understand they were supposed to be carrying out independent scrutiny.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘We expect these partnerships to maintain the highest possible standards.’

She said that after the Mail contacted the Government with its concerns it had taken action.

‘We strengthened the rules to make sure there was greater transparency,’ she added. ‘We have been very clear that we won’t hesitate to act if any LEP fails to comply with the new tougher standards.’

MORE CASE STUDIES

BRISTOL

A former Mayor took £48,000 for his ‘beer factory’ – and another £14,000 for his brewing firm – from the LEP board he sat on.

The grants were handed to enterprises owned by George Ferguson while he sat on the board. He was Mayor of Bristol until earlier this year.
But no minutes exist on how the decisions were taken and no documents indicating his interest in the factory and brewing firm appear to have been published by the LEP.

The £48,000 grant for Mr Ferguson’s Bristol Beer Factory was supposed to be to support local jobs, but there is also no publicly available record of why his other beer firm – the Bristol Brewing Company – received two other payments totalling £14,499.

Neither the LEP nor Mr Ferguson would explain the payments.

While on the board, another company the Mayor was a director of – Destination Bristol – was also paid £10,000 in consultants’ fees by the West of England LEP.

Five other payments – worth just over £92,000 – were made to a company owned by one of Mr Ferguson’s political donors, Alasdair Sawday. The former Mayor said he had ‘properly declared all his known interests’ and ‘studiously avoided being involved in any decision relating to my own or family interests’.

West of England LEP said Mr Ferguson ‘played no part’ in the funding decisions but would not comment on why no registers of interest were available for former members or why minutes of key funding decisions before 2014 did not exist.

LEICESTERSHIRE
A zoo was given a £550,000 grant for ape enclosures after its chief executive joined the LEP board.

Sharon Redrobe said securing the funding had been her finest achievement. And after the grant was handed out, her pay went from £85,000 to £94,000, a rise linked to the zoo’s improved financial performance.

Dr Redrobe, 47, became CEO of Twycross Zoo in October 2013 and joined LEP board the following summer. Less than a year later, a panel on which two of her LEP colleagues sat approved a £558,000 grant to help the zoo refurbish animal enclosures.

Twycross Zoo denied Dr Redrobe’s pay rise was linked to the LEP grant. A spokesman said: ‘There is no conflict of interest. Dr Redrobe played no part in the grant decision.

Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership also said Dr Redrobe had no role in the decision to grant the funds.

BRIGHTON
… fashion boss Susie Cave was handed a £53,000 taxpayer-funded grant from her Local Enterprise Partnership.

She was given the money after telling the LEP Coast to Capital she wanted to launch a designer collection but her business didn’t have enough cash.
By then, Mrs Cave’s designer clothes line – which she makes from the comfort of her home – had already been worn by celebrities such as Cate Blanchett and model Daisy Lowe.

But she told the board she needed more money to hire staff and launch a full collection for women ‘with money to spend on beautiful things’. It has now been launched, with dresses ranging from £575 to nearly £1,000.

Milliner to the stars Philip Treacy OBE and designer Bella Freud – Lucian Freud’s daughter – are among the company’s board members and advisers.
Mrs Cave, the business’s 50-year-old creative director, lives in a regency-era mansion worth around £3million with her husband Nick, the singer-songwriter, who is worth £4million.

Coast to Capital said: ‘This is a strong local business. It has already delivered the 5.5 jobs for local people it committed to at its premises on a Brighton Business Park. This grant, representing 25 per cent of the total investment, was awarded through a transparent process, with the proposal assessed against the published criteria by an independent panel.’ ”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003918/Ban-fat-cats-secret-deals-says-MPs-demand-action-Mail-exposes-old-pals-club-doles-public-money.html

Daily Mail investigation into LEPs part 2 – prepare to be shocked to your core

“Officials in charge of billions of pounds of Whitehall business grants have overseen hundreds of payments to their colleagues’ firms, the Daily Mail reveals today.

They were put in charge of £7.3billion of taxpayers’ money to boost growth and help small businesses, under the Government’s flagship Growth Deal scheme.

But on at least 276 occasions, the cash has been used to make payments to the officials themselves, their own companies, or projects they stand to benefit from.

The officials sit on boards called Local Enterprise Partnerships or LEPs consisting of local business bosses and council chiefs. These bodies have not accounted for £3.7billion of the cash they have been given by the Government.

Astonishingly there are no rules to prevent the officials from using the cash to award grants to themselves, or from making their decisions in secret.

In the first comprehensive audit of the billions spent under the Growth Deal, the Mail’s investigation found conflicts of interest over hundreds of payments. In some of the most extraordinary cases:

■ A board boss saw his own call centre handed a £1million taxpayer-funded grant – a quarter of the funding available for his area;
■ A multi-millionaire banker oversaw payments of nearly £13,000 to his family’s Norman castle for board events;
■ A board member’s multi-millionaire business partner received a £40,000 payment – to renovate a luxury barn on his estate that they both used as their offices;
■ A £60,000 grant intended for local companies was given to a Saudi chemical giant after its UK boss joined an LEP board.

Last night a Government spokesman admitted the Mail’s findings were ‘extremely serious’. And the evidence was branded ‘completely unacceptable’ by the Commons public accounts committee chairman Meg Hillier, who accused the boards of acting like ‘a cosy little club of private businesses’.
She vowed that the committee would carry out a full investigation of the Mail’s evidence.

Under the Growth Deal, £7.3billion has been allocated to LEP boards to spend on projects that will supposedly boost growth all over England.

The revelations will embarrass Chancellor Philip Hammond, who just last week pledged to hand a further £1.8billion to LEPs in his Autumn Statement.
But no rules were ever laid down by the Government about whether the private sector bosses who sit on LEP boards and administer the funding can award the money to themselves.

Many of them seem unaware that taxpayers’ money must be accounted for.
In many cases, the bodies have simply refused to explain payments, or been unable to provide any records of how decisions involving tens of millions of pounds of public money were made.

Because most of the bodies do not publish accounts, it took months of Freedom of Information requests to establish where the £7.3billion had gone. And the Mail has found that barely half has been properly accounted for – with at least £3.7billion unaccounted for publicly. Hundreds of grants have also been handed out in secret – so it is impossible to tell whether officials have benefited financially. Nearly £500,000 worth of grants have been labelled ‘miscellaneous’ or ‘redacted’ in accounts provided to the Mail.

One LEP refused to provide an account of its spending, and told the Mail to look at board minutes online – where all details of all its funding decisions were redacted. Another said it had promised all the companies it gave money to that their names would be kept secret.

It was last night refusing to name the 182 businesses that had benefited – meaning it is impossible to know whether any of its board members were among them.

From the figures that have been provided nationally, the Mail found 276 payments – worth more than £100million – which involved obvious conflicts of interest.

In many cases there are no public records of how the decisions were made. Where they are available, we found some board members had declared their interests – but had been allowed to sit in and even vote on decisions anyway.

Others do not bother to declare their private interests in registers which are supposed to be published online.

Until our investigation, four in ten of the bodies failed to publish a register of interests – even when asked for one by the National Audit Office. In addition, some board members were found to have taken fees for ‘consultancy’ work or other services – while publicly claiming they were not remunerated. Some of the fees have been paid through private firms or personal service companies – a practice which allows the beneficiary to potentially avoid paying income tax.

The supposedly low-cost LEPs have also spent a fortune on their lavish expenses – for hotel stays, foreign jollies, chauffeured travel, meals out, curries and burgers.

Although they are supposed to spend only £500,000 a year on their running costs, one has spent £24million in just six years.

In a report published earlier this year, the National Audit Office raised serious concerns about the accountability of LEPs. It said it had been unable to find details of the remuneration of senior staff at 87 per cent of LEPs, and said registers of interest were missing at four in ten of the bodies. The report said the Government’s ‘light touch approach to assessing value for money’ was at risk of becoming ‘no touch’ and criticised it for having an incomplete picture of how the bodies were operating.

Last night MPs said the abuses were shocking – and accused the Government of allowing a ‘staggering’ lack of accountability over the billions of taxpayers’ money.

And they have demanded to know why billions were handed to boards chaired by representatives of private sector companies – without any safeguards to stop public funds being abused.

‘It’s not at all clear that the right safeguards have been put in place,’ Meg Hillier said. ‘To have more than £3.7billion that is not accounted for publicly is just completely unacceptable. These board members need to understand that if they go on an LEP board, it’s not just a cosy little club of private businesses. We have already raised concerns about the accountability of LEPs and the lack of basic systems in place to make sure interests are declared and where money is being spent. This whole issue is of deep concern to us.’

Charlotte Leslie, Tory MP for Bristol North West, said the Mail’s findings were ‘diabolical’ and suggested LEPs were at risk of becoming ‘cosy clubs for local vested interests.’ She added: ‘This must be investigated fully.’
A Government spokesman said: ‘We take the Daily Mail’s findings extremely seriously.’

Last week, after being contacted by the Mail about the story, the Government published new rules. The spokesman added: ‘We want to see greater transparency on how taxpayers’ money is spent. We won’t hesitate to act if any Local Enterprise Partnership fails to comply with these new tougher standards.

The Mail has found that more than £100million has been paid to LEP board members and officials’ own businesses or projects they have a stake in.

These are some of the most shocking examples…

1. ESTATE AGENT HAD OFFICES RENOVATED FOR £40K

A board member’s business partner was handed £40,000 to refurbish a luxury barn on his private family estate.

The barn belongs to Richard Burton, the business partner of LEP board member Bill Jackson. It also happens to be where Mr Burton and Mr Jackson run their estate agency – called Jackson Equestrian.

Mr Jackson’s girlfriend also runs an interior design business, Horton Interiors, from the building – and reports online suggest her firm may also have been a beneficiary of the grant because it was used to carry out some of the refurbishment work.

Her company boasts of having undertaken ‘all work in the planning and feasibility stages, as well as securing grant funding’.
A news release on her company’s website added that it had ‘created a fun yet practical scheme for the offices, including whimsical wallpaper in the communal kitchen’.

After being fitted out at taxpayers’ expense, the barn now appears to boast luxury interiors, a design studio and oak signs, while a sculpture of a rearing horse stands amid manicured gardens in its front drive. As well as being the multi-millionaire heir of the estate, Mr Burton has a share in Mr Jackson’s business.

Mr Jackson did not disclose the fact that Mr Burton is his business partner – and married to his girlfriend’s niece – in his register of interests. He only declared the fact that the grant was ‘on buildings used on offices for Jackson Equestrian and Horton Interiors’. He insisted he had no financial interest, because the firms only rented the building.

The LEP has refused to provide evidence of how the funding decisions were made but said Mr Jackson, 71, who is the current High Sheriff of Herefordshire, has no involvement in funding decisions related to the redundant buildings scheme, and that they were made by a steering group. A spokesman added: ‘Neither Mr Jackson, nor any of his companies, has applied for or been a recipient of funding. Mr Jackson has no involvement in the allocation of any funds.’

Mr Jackson, said: ‘The grant was made to Longner Farms to which I have no financial connection. Jackson Equestrian, a company I am director of, rents part of the converted barns at £10 per square foot, which is a commercial rent and there is a lease in place. At all times I have declared my interest to the board in writing and have made no financial gain.’ Neither Mr Burton or Horton Interiors responded to requests for comment.

2. BANKER’S OWN CASTLE GOT £13K

A multi-millionaire banker received nearly £13,000 for his family’s Norman castle from the LEP board of which he is a member.

Eton-educated James Saunders Watson runs his family’s 20-acre Rockingham Castle Estate, alongside a lucrative career at investment bank JP Morgan.
Before Mr Saunders Watson joined the Northamptonshire LEP board in 2011, it made no payments to the estate. But within months of him joining, the LEP started giving money to public events there. This included more than £12,000 to sponsor dressage, cross-country, and show jumping competitions.
More than £400 was also used to cover the cost of canapes, elderflower presse, orange juice, mulled wine and mince pies for an LEP event at the castle.

This event was to ‘promote Northamptonshire’ – although technically, the castle is in Leicestershire.

The payments for the events were made directly to Mr Saunders Watson, who operates as a sole trader rather than through an official company. Mr Saunders Watson, 55, lives in the castle with wife Elizabeth, 51, and their three children.

The castle, started in 1071 on the orders of William the Conqueror, has been the family seat of the Saunders Watson family for 450 years.
In an interview with the Financial Times in 2004, he said: ‘It’s wonderful to have so much space. The part we live in has 11 bedrooms, with a further five available if needed, and there are 20 acres of garden outside – the kids love it.

‘Of course there are drawbacks. It takes ages to unload the car after we’ve been to the supermarket because we have to walk through two courtyards carrying everything; and it’s also an awful long way to the loo.’
Mr Saunders Watson is estimated to be worth £22million. He is head of investment trust marketing at JP Morgan.

There are no public records showing how the decisions were made, but Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership said Mr Saunders Watson had no role in the decision to pay money to his castle, which was made by officials and not at board level.

It said sponsoring the Rockingham International Horse Trials allowed it to promote Northamptonshire ‘as an investment and housing location to a national and international audience’.

A spokesman added: ‘The refreshments were best value as no charges were made for use of the venue. NEP has a key strategic objective to promote Northamptonshire as a great place to live, work and invest.’

Mr Saunders Watson said the horse trials sponsorship was ‘exceptionally good value’ and that refreshments ‘were charged at cost with the venue costs met by me, as part of my commitment to NEP and Northamptonshire’s economic growth’.

He said he had no role in choosing to pay the castle, adding: ‘Rockingham Castle is the oldest historic building and the only international equestrian event in the county so it is not surprising or inappropriate that an organisation responsible for promoting Northamptonshire would include Rockingham in its activities.’

3. SAUDI ROYALS’ FIRM GOT £60K

A £60,000 growth grant intended for ‘local companies’ wanting to ‘take on more business’ was given to a Saudi chemical giant represented on the board handing the cash out.

The multinational firm – which is one of the world’s largest makers of petrochemicals and makes profits of £5billion a year – was chosen for the growth grant after its UK director joined the LEP board handing out the money.LEP advertising stated that the grants would ‘support local companies looking to recruit more staff, enabling them to grow and take on new business.’

But astonishingly SABIC – which is based in Saudi Arabia and is 70 per cent owned by the Saudi royal family – was given £60,000 as a ‘wage subsidy’ for its British base in Teesside.

The global chairman of SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited is Prince Saud bin Abdullah bin Thenayan Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family +7
The global chairman of SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited is Prince Saud bin Abdullah bin Thenayan Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family
Paul Booth, chairman of SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited, continued to sit on the Tees Valley LEP board when the payments were made. SABIC – which stands for Saudi Basic Industries Corporation – employs more than 40,000 people across more than 50 countries.

The global chairman is Prince Saud bin Abdullah bin Thenayan Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family. SABIC UK and Tees Valley LEP said Mr Booth had no involvement in the funding decisions, which were taken by an LEP panel he did not sit on. SABIC UK said the application was made without Mr Booth’s knowledge.

A spokesman added: ‘Mr Booth was not involved in the decision-making process for making these payments. He and SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited did not operate under any conflict of interest or otherwise exert any inappropriate influence.’

The LEP said the grant had led to new jobs, adding: ‘There is no impropriety. Robust procedures are in place to ensure any potential conflicts of interest are identified and dealt with.’ ”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4000010/Exposed-Secretive-fat-cats-carving-7bn-cash-friends-family-including-40-000-renovate-barn-155-000-Jamie-Oliver-s-charity-restaurant.html