Daily Mail investigation into LEPs – part 1

LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

What are LEPs?

Local Enterprise Partnerships were set up by the coalition government in 2010. They control billions of pounds of public money, which they are supposed to use for investment that will help drive economic growth in their region. They replaced Regional Development Authorities. But unlike RDAs, LEPs were never set up in law and are ‘voluntary bodies’. This means that, despite making decisions over billions of pounds, many have no legal structure.

How many of them are there?
There are 39, one in every region in England.

Who sits on them?
LEPs are led by boards of local authority officials and private business bosses. According to the rules set out by the Government, the boards must be chaired by a businessperson and at least half the members must be from the private sector. But under the Government’s ‘light touch’ regulation of LEPs, the bodies are otherwise free to make their own decisions on how to appoint board members.

How powerful are they?
LEPs have been given £7.3billion of taxpayers’ money so far – and in last week’s Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond promised them another £1.8billion. Although the money they control is kept in council accounts, LEP boards have free rein to decide where it goes.

Are they transparent about how they spend our money?
Despite being asked for details of all their expenditure via Freedom of Information requests, they were unable or unwilling to provide details of at least £3.7billion of the money they have been given.

Some LEPs refused to provide any information at all for more than five months – and many still refuse to answer key questions about payments they have made.

No firm rules were made about how transparent LEPs had to be about how they used public money, or how grants were made. And no rules were made which prevent the board members from benefiting from grants. In March, the National Audit Office found LEPs were ‘not as transparent to the public as we would expect’. It found no details of the pay and perks of senior staff available to the public at 87 per cent of LEPs. Four in ten did not publish a register of interests.

How are they scrutinised?

Incredibly no real scrutiny of LEPs appears to exist. The Government claims it is the job of councils to check on their decisions.

But no councils contacted by the Mail were willing to investigate the questionable payments we found. In fact, many did not appear to understand they were supposed to be carrying out independent scrutiny. The NAO said Ministers’ ‘light touch approach to assessing value for money’ was at risk of becoming ‘no touch’, relying on conversations with the LEP and ‘self-reporting’ to assess how well they are doing.

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

How ruthless chief executives avoid the sack

“The NHS was accused of a whitewash this evening after a hospital boss who spent £10million suppressing whistleblowers was cleared by an official report.

David Loughton, who earned £260,000 last year, has been allowed to keep his job despite using taxpayers’ money to fight staff who raised serious concerns about patient safety.

The review into how Mr Loughton’s hospital trust is being run would only go as far as saying that he had ‘an impulsive and honest style’. It appears he will now face no disciplinary action and no sanctions will be taken against him.

Whistleblowers who were forced out of their jobs by Mr Loughton were not even interviewed for the report, and only found out the review had been published when contacted by the Mail.

In a further twist, it has emerged that the consultancy firm chosen by the NHS to do the review has been paid £78,837 by Mr Loughton’s trust for other jobs this year.

Deloitte was paid £45,444 for the review by watchdog NHS Improvement.
Mr Loughton, 62, chief executive at The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, is renowned for fighting whistleblowers through the courts.

They include leading heart surgeon Dr Raj Mattu, who was vilified and sacked after he exposed that two patients had died in dangerously overcrowded bays in a hospital at another trust run by Mr Loughton.

Dr Mattu was cleared at a tribunal and in February was awarded £1.2million damages.

Manager Sandra Haynes Kirkbright was also suspended after raising concerns that Mr Loughton’s Woverhampton trust had mis-recorded deaths, making it look like fewer patients had died needlessly.

An investigation into her case condemned the trust for its ‘significantly flawed’ and ‘unfair’ treatment.

It described an account of how Mr Loughton made sure Mrs Haynes Kirkbright was ‘out of the way’ before a visit from hospital inspectors, telling staff to ‘kick this into the long grass’.

After the report into her case was published in May, NHS watchdogs ordered a review into the management of Mr Loughton’s hospital trust. But the results of that review were only quietly published on the trust’s website earlier this week. And it emerged that Deloitte was instructed to focus on the hospital as it is now, rather than considering previous whistleblowing cases.

As a result, the report’s authors did not contact Dr Mattu, Mrs Haynes Kirkbright or former board members who have criticised the management. They did not check what they were told by Mr Loughton and his employees, writing in the review: ‘We have assumed that the information provided to us and management’s representations are complete, accurate and reliable.’

Describing Mr Loughton, the report stated: ‘The chief executive is a strong character with an impulsive style and can attract controversy from time to time. However, he is strongly supported.’ It added: ‘Any past behavioural challenges have tempered in recent years.’

Today Dr Mattu said: ‘They have taken at face value everything management has said. I have great experience of Mr Loughton and he ruthlessly attacks anyone who dissents. He has persecuted whistleblowers. This has been a disgraceful waste of taxpayers’ money.’

Mrs Haynes Kirkbright said: ‘I was not consulted at all on this report. I didn’t know a thing about it until the Mail told me.’

Professor David Ferry was outed last year by Mr Loughton’s hospital after he anonymously revealed in the Mail that 55 cancer patients were needlessly put through the agony of chemotherapy.

This evening, he said: ‘They have whitewashed everything. I told them about Dr Mattu, about Sandra, about my case, but they said this is about the future, not the past. They have rewritten history their way, whatever the facts are.’

Mr Loughton, an NHS chief executive for 28 years, was awarded a pay rise of about £35,000 last year.

He joined Royal Wolverhampton in 2014 after 14 years at Coventry’s Walsgrave Hospital.

Mr Loughton said: ‘We are pleased with the review’s conclusions. Our number one priority is always patient care. Having an open and transparent culture is one of the ways in which we can ensure we remain committed to providing the best care we possibly can.

‘We are always seeking ways in which we can improve and we will take on board the recommendations the review makes.’

A trust spokesman said NHS Improvement commissioned Deloitte to do the review and ‘in line with many other organisations we have used the services of Deloitte’.

NHS Improvement said: ‘Deloitte were appointed following a formal and thorough tendering and evaluation process.’
Deloitte declined to comment.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3995418/NHS-boss-Royal-Wolverhampton-NHS-Trust-faces-no-action-spending-10m-silence-whistleblowers.html

Health crisis: EDDC scrutiny committee grills NHS rep

01 December 2016
Scrutiny committee questions CCG representative
Councillors voice concerns over proposed East Devon in-patient bed provision within Your Future Care consultation

At a meeting on Thursday 24 November 2016, members of East Devon District Council’s Scrutiny committee listened to Rob Sainsbury, the Chief Operating Officer of the NHS North Eastern & Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (NHS NEW Devon CCG), give a talk about the NHS’s Your Future Care consultation.

Mr Sainsbury spoke about issues such as the financial pressure faced by the NHS, the changing way in which people are cared for, proposed models of care and the number of community inpatient beds in East Devon. He outlined the options set out in the consultation and reassured the committee that no changes to services would be made until tests created by local clinicians had been undertaken to ensure the changes are safe and reliable.

Consultation options
• Option A: Tiverton 32 beds, Seaton 24 beds, Exmouth 16 beds
• Option B: Tiverton 32 beds, Sidmouth 24 beds, Exmouth 16 beds
• Option C: Tiverton 32 beds, Seaton 24 beds, Exeter 16
• Option D: Tiverton 32 beds, Sidmouth 24 beds, Exeter 16 beds
The CCG’s preferred option is A, as this combination is considered by the CCG to result in the smallest changes in travel time and to have the greatest impact on the whole system.

Prior to councillors questioning Mr Sainsbury and debating a number of issues, the Scrutiny Chairman Councillor Roger Giles reminded the committee of recent comments made by Neil Parish MP who asked that action be taken to: “Fight all closures across East Devon.” Cllr Giles expressed a hope that the committee would adopt a unified front rather than focus on arguments between the towns where community hospitals are located.

Following a wide range of questions from councillors, which Mr Sainsbury answered, councillors voted in favour of the following comments being sent in a response from the Scrutiny committee to the NEW Devon CCG Your Future Care consultation:

1. Asks that the New Devon CCG presents an outline of how care delivery integrates health, social, and mental care, as well as physiotherapy, and how it is provided to patients

2. Consider that the comparison with Northern and Western Devon areas is unfair as the demographics were not the same as Eastern Devon

3. The committee considers that the models proposed in the consultation will not meet the needs of the District because of the local issues of social isolation, and the support that carers need

4. The NEW Devon CCG should review the expenditure on management and administration as a means to realise savings that could be used to provide care rather than divert funding from in-patient beds

5. The committee considers that the evidence presented to date by the NEW Devon CCG is not sufficient to convince them that the new model of care will be successful

6. The Committee does not accept Options A – D, but recommends that the NEW Devon CCG should retain the current level of in-patient beds in community hospitals in the Eastern Devon locality

7. Should a decision be made to close in-patients beds, the Committee insists that this is not undertaken until the replacement model of care is recognised as safe and in place; subject to the provision of evidence that the model of care has resulted in no bed blocking at acute hospitals, non occupancy of beds in community hospitals, and full care in the community

Commenting on the content and outcome of the meeting, Councillor Roger Giles said:

“The Scrutiny Committee were very far from convinced about the practicality of the CCG proposals to close beds in East Devon community hospitals and replace them with care in the community. There was also concern about the accuracy of the CCG costings used to justify closure of hospital beds. The committee felt strongly that East Devon hospitals provided an excellent and essential local service and that the existing hospital beds should be retained.”

ENDS

Knowle relocation: EDDC defies Information Commissioner AGAIN and heads for court AGAIN

“EDDC TO DEFY INFORMATION COMMISSIONER – AND TO TAKE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS ON KNOWLE TO TRIBUNAL

East Devon District Council have formally announced that they will only be complying with one of three Decision Notices issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office on 25th October.

They have formally released the already widely-known information that the price for the Knowle site to developers PegasusLife is £7.5 million – on condition that they receive planning permission. (Decision Notice on Case: FER0608237).

However, the Council do not wish to divulge the “minutes of meetings and correspondence on the subject the decision to award the contract to PegasusLife” (Decision Notice on Case: FER0623403) or give “a copy of an agreement between East Devon District Council and a developer, Pegasus Life, in relation to a site at Knowle” (Decision Notice on Case: FER0626901)

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/knowle-relocation-project-breaking-news.html
http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/knowle-relocation-project-information.html

It is clear that the Council do not want any information to be revealed about the contractual arrangements it has with the developer. And in particular, they do not want this to happen before a crucial vote by their planning committee on 6th December – when the Development Management Committee will consider the controversial planning application 16/0872/MFUL from PegasusLife.

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/knowle-relocation-project-planning_24.html

This timing seriously puts into question the extent to which the DMC’s decision-making is thereby being compromised, in that any information touching on the planning application should be made available to DMC Members – and the developer’s contract clearly refers to the planning application.

It is now obvious, therefore, that the Council would rather incur further embarrassment and potential damage to their reputation by appearing at the Information Tribunal – as this is the second time it will be appealing against the Information Commissioner.

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/knowle-relocation-project-foi-request_27.html

The obvious question which has to be asked is: What are they so desperate to hide?

Moreover, the Council is clearly prepared to spend yet further on defending itself, no doubt with the use of expensive legal representation – and yet it complains regularly about the expense of having to deal with FOI requests.
Why, then, is the Council so determined to avoid being held properly accountable, let alone transparent to its rate-paying electorate?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/knowle-relocation-project-continuing.html

It will be interesting to see how the Council deals with the legal process which will now ensue. Will it drag matters out as it did two years ago, during the first time it appeared at the Tribunal?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/knowle-relocation-project-we-believe.html

And how will the Council’s representatives conduct themselves on this occasion?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/knowle-relocation-project-information.html

END

“False, flawed and fraudulent” says “Save Our Hospital Services” of NHS plans for Devon

SAVE OUR HOSPITAL SERVICES DEVON PRESS RELEASE
ON THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY

The ‘Success Regime’/STP Team in Devon

“Save Our Hospital Services Devon (SOHS Devon) 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

External auditors not best placed to review Local Plan – Duh!

Honestly, you could not make it up. Independent councillors recently flagged that the NEXT review of the existing Local Plan needs to be sorted out NOW and not (as in the past) faffed-about with at the last minute.

So, some bright spark came up with the idea of asking EDDC’s FINANCIAL external auditor (KPMG) to get it going. Here is what happened next.

Problem (page 134 of agenda papers):
Undertake a Review of the process for writing the Local Plan in future”

The solution
“A meeting has been held with our external auditors to scope out this review but it was quickly determined that they are not the right people to undertake this review due to their lack of knowledge of the plan making process. Other options including using the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) are now being pursued.”

Click to access 241116-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Duh, duh and more duh!

NHS cuts on EDDC scrutiny agenda – 24 November 2016, 6 pm

The full consultation document begins on page 9:

Click to access 241116-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

“Police yet to quiz Exeter’s crime tsar as inquiry into election expenses draws to close”

“Police have still not even asked for a date to interview Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez about expenses for the general election campaign, her chief of staff has revealed.

Ms Hernandez, who was criticised for taking a “selfie” with the chief fire officer at the scene of the Exeter fire last week, is set to be interviewed following a complaint about alleged false accounting, following her role as the Conservative Party election agent in Torbay MP Kevin Foster’s victorious campaign in 2015.

The allegations relate to expenses for the Tory “Battle Bus”, which brought activists to constituencies from outside the area with leaflets and are thought to have helped swing the vote.

Cornwall MPs Scott Mann and George Eustice are among those caught up in the investigations, which are continuing.

The issue has dogged the PCC since the story broke days before her own election victory in May by a narrow margin.

She has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and insists she stands ready and willing to assisst any investigation.

Andrew White, chief executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) said the investigation in Devon and Cornwall by West Mercia police was expected to conclude in weeks but no request has been made to speak to the commissioner.

Mr White, who I referred allegations about election expenses and potential breaches of electoral law on expenses in the Torbay constituency, said: “I am informed by the IPCC that the investigation is progressing. It is expected that the investigation should conclude by November this year. I can confirm that West Mercia Police have not yet requested an interview with the PCC, Alison Hernandez.”

“Following the investigation, a report will be presented to the IPCC and a decision will be made whether the case should be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS),” Mr White added

“This investigation is one of a number of similar investigations being undertaken across the country.

“I will issue further updates as and when any relevant information, that I am allowed to disclose by the relevant bodies, becomes available.”

It emerged last month that Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer was also under investigation after comments he made about diverting police resources to deal with the inquiry.

The remarks which have got Mr Sawyer into hot water were made in a BBC interview, when he said that although “democracy is important” Parliament needed to consider procedures for dealing with complaints about the way elections are run.

“This is taking up police time,” he said. “It is taxpayers’ money.”

Adrian Sanders, who made the complaint, has said that it was not for the chief constable to make such comments.

“You can’t make statements like that unless you have some background detail,” he told the BBC.

“He’s not in a position to know that detail, especially when it’s his boss who is the subject of investigation.”

In a statement, the chief constable denied any wrongdoing and said he would cooperate fully with the investigation.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/police-yet-to-quiz-exeter-s-crime-tsar-as-inquiry-into-election-expenses-draws-to-close/story-29884683-detail/story.html

North Somerset and Bath: Goodbye NHS, hello Virgin Healthcare

Set to commence on April Fool’s Day next year

“Sir Richard Branson’s health firm, Virgin Care, has won a £700m contract to deliver 200 types of NHS and social care services to more than 200,000 people in Bath and north-east Somerset.

The contract, which was approved on Thursday, has sparked new fears about private health firms expanding their role in the provision of publicly funded health services.

Virgin Care has been handed the contract by both Bath and North East Somerset NHS clinical commissioning group and Conservative-led Bath and North East Somerset council. It is worth £70m a year for seven years and the contract includes an option to extend it by another three years at the same price.

It means that from 1 April Virgin Care will become the prime provider of a wide range of care for adults and children. That will include everything from services for those with diabetes, dementia or who have suffered a stroke, as well as people with mental health conditions. It will also cover care of children with learning disabilities and frail, elderly people who are undergoing rehabilitation to enable them to go back to living at home safely after an operation.

NHS campaigners warned that the history of previous privatisations of NHS services in other parts of England may mean the quality of care patients receive drops once Virgin takes over.

“This is obviously part of a big push by Virgin to dominate the supply of community health across England. The experience so far from NHS outsourcing is that companies struggle to deliver the level of service that patients need and make a profit,” said Paul Evans, co-ordinator of the NHS Support Federation, which monitors NHS contracts being awarded to firms such as Virgin.

“In too many instances outsourced healthcare has resulted in care being compromised to cuts costs. Patients need secure services that they can trust and rely on,” Evans added.

The collapse of the £725m UnitingCare contract in Cambridgeshire meant Virgin’s newly acquired contract would be the most lucrative ongoing deal for providing NHS care, he said.

Eleanor Jackson, a Labour member of Bath and North East Somerset council, told the Mirror she was “horrified” by the decision. “Make no mistake about it, what has happened here is the beginning of the privatisation of the NHS in this country. Woe betide you getting ill in this area if you are old, disabled or have learning difficulties in the next seven years. It is just a horrifying decision,” she said.

There are concerns that handing the work to Virgin Care will take important income away from the many local NHS, voluntary, charitable and housing bodies that currently provide some of the services. They include the Royal United hospitals Bath NHS foundation trust, Great Western hospitals NHS foundation trust and the Avon and Wiltshire mental health partnership NHS trust. Charities affected include Age UK’s Bath branch and the Alzheimer’s Society.

Virgin will also run the urgent care facility at Paulton community hospital, which is 12 miles from Bath, and subcontract a number of other services to other providers, including the provision of dementia and end of life care and a “hospital from home” service for recently discharged patients.

“I am pleased that we can now start the process of transferring services. Following extensive consultation with local people and a very rigorous procurement process, the CCG board is assured that Virgin Care is the right organisation to deliver the personalised and preventative care that local people have asked for,” said Dr Ian Orpen, the clinical chair of Bath and North East Somerset clinical commissioning group.

“We will be working closely with the council and our new partners, Virgin Care, over the coming months to ensure that services and staff are transferred across safely on 1 April 2017 and to minimise disruption to the care and support that people currently receive.”

A spokesman for Virgin Care said: “We are really pleased to have been chosen by the council and CCG to deliver more joined-up care for people across Bath and north-east Somerset. We have a strong track record over the last decade of overseeing integration and improvement of NHS services across England and we’re looking forward to working with the many outstanding professionals, and a range of great partners, to provide and oversee high quality, easy-to-navigate services which are shaped by the people who use them.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/11/virgin-care-700m-contract-200-nhs-social-care-services-bath-somerset

EDDC 2015/2016 accounts still not signed off by external auditors

Report from external auditors KPMG (page 10 of agenda papers). The auditors original statement was that they hoped to have concluded the outstanding matter by the end of October 2016. This has obviously not been possible.

We received an objection to the Authority’s financial statements from a local elector. We are currently concluding the outcome of our work on the matters raised and, until this is completed, we are unable to issue our certificate. Once issued, the certificate will confirm that we have concluded the audit for 2015/16 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Audit & Accountability Act 2014 and the Code of Audit Practice.
We will report separately on the outcome of the objection to the Authority’s Audit & Governance Committee.”

The matter is now pushed on to the next Audit and Governance Committees on 5 January 2017. (page 42 of agenda):

Click to access 171116combined-a-and-gagenda.pdf

Diviani votes against Claire Wright DCC motion to re-examine Honiton hospital closure

Reblogged from the site of Claire Wright, indefatiguable independent councillor fighting non-stop on health service cuts.

NOTE: EDDC Tory Leader Paul Diviani sabotaged her effort to “stop the clock” on cuts to re-examine the effects of closing Honiton and Okehampton hospitals.

REPORT FROM CLAIRE WRIGHT, DCC HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

“• CCG does not know how many more staff it needs

• No answer (yet) to public health stated assumption that care at home costs the same as care in big hospitals

My proposal at yesterday’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee meeting to suspend the consultation which proposes to halve the remaining community hospital beds in Eastern Devon, fell by two votes.

There was a packed public gallery. Several members of the public, including Di Fuller, chair of Sidmouth’s patient and public involvement group and Cathy Gardner, EDDC Independent councillor for Sidmouth spoke powerfully, expressing deep concerns about the bed losses.

Di Fuller said the consultation should be rejected as “invalid.”

Cathy Gardner called on the committee to demand more funding from central government.

Councillors, Kevin Ball and James McInnes from Okehampton made strong representations on behalf of the town relating to the hospital being excluded from the consultation.

(I am part of a sub-committee of health scrutiny that meets tomorrow to scope an investigation into the funding formula for Devon’s health services, which many people, including me believe is unfair, despite the government’s claims that Devon receives more funding than its fair share).

Staff from the NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group presented to the committee. They were Rob Sainsbury, Jenny McNeill and GPs – Joe Andrews and Simon Kerr.

We were shown a video of patients happy with the hospital at home scheme which operates in Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton only, as evidence that care in people’s homes work.

This to me didn’t seem to be adequate evidence given that hospital at home is limited to Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton, is consultant led and mirrors the kind of care one might expect in a hospital. It is a good service but expensive to run.

This is not what is being proposed for the remainder of Eastern Devon.

The four presenters tried their best to sell us their new model of care. Some of us weren’t convinced.

Cllr Andy Boyd was critical of the plans and other members asked questions about housing and various NHS procedures.

I asked how many more staff they would need to operate their new system. We heard they needed more “therapy staff” and other disciplines, but not how many more of each. We were told that a staff analysis was currently being carried out.

I said I was surprised that this information was not known, halfway through the consultation, with an expected figure of savings at around £5-£6m. How can the CCG be confident that the new system will save money when basic information is not known, such as how many staff are required?

Under the previous agenda item I had turned to page three of the October 2015 public health acuity audit – a document used by the CCG to back up its case for shutting beds, where it states as an assumption: “Caring for a patient in an acute care setting is either more expensive than, or at least as expensive as, caring for a patient in alternative setting, including at home.”

I asked for a reaction to this statement. Angela Pedder, Success Regime chief, said she would get back to me about it.

It is surprising that in a document the CCG is using to back up its case, where they say caring for people at home will save money, it states that this care costs the same as acute care (such as the care provided at the RD&E for example).

I raised the issue of Devon County Council’s adult social care budget being £5m overspent and how this overspend will need to be brought back to zero by April 2017. This will surely have a potentially significant impact on any NHS care that is provided in people’s homes.

But Rob Sainsbury said that social care packages could be organised in a different way to support care in people’s homes.

I said that earlier NHS (incorrect) statements about a third of community hospital beds not being used has now morphed into third of bed space not being used. If this is the case surely it is due to previous community hospital bed cuts over the years!

And the other CCG claim relating to Eastern Devon having far more beds than other parts of the county is surely because they have been cut in other parts of the county!

According to a public health audit from last year, there are 94 per cent bed occupancy levels in Eastern Devon. They are far from being half empty.

Finally, I raised the issue of a government watchdog – the Independent Reconfiguration Panel – that examined the Torrington Hospital case for bed losses. It stated in its response that communities must feel they have a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome of a consultation.

I proposed that the consultation be suspended while the CCG included both Honiton and Okehampton in the options to retain beds.

The proposal was seconded by Brian Greenslade but unfortunately was lost 5-7.

Instead, chair, Richard Westlake asked for urgent talks between the CCG and Honiton and Okehampton communities.

In other news, two motions calling for more funding to Devon’s NHS and for the Success Regime to be paused, were agreed by the committee and will go before full council in December.

To view the webcast see – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/244717

To comment on the consultation email: d-ccg.yourfuturecare@nhs.net
The deadline is 6 January.

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/proposal_to_suspend_plans_to_cut_71_east_devon_community_hospital_beds_fail

NHS: How to profit when excrement hitting the air conditioning

The NHS’ new “Success Regime” aims to put a firm brake on health spending, but it’s proving to be a bonanza for consultants on lucrative contracts who oversee the process. And some of these consultants are former senior NHS managers who received generous payoffs when their jobs disappeared as a result of the Tories’ top-down reorganisation of the health service in 2012.

There were a few wry smiles, therefore, at Monday evening’s public “consultation” in Sidmouth to discuss closing the town’s community hospital beds, when Dame Ruth Carnall, chair of the “Success Regime” which is monitoring these cuts, bemoaned the disastrous “fragmentary” effects of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.

She may not like it, but as chief executive of NHS London which was abolished by the Act, she received a payoff in 2013 which included a £2.2 million pension pot.

Then with another former NHS executive she created consultants Carnall Farrar Ltd who were chosen by NEW Devon CCG to advise them on how to save money before she was appointed “Independent Chair” of the “Success Regime”. Rumours suggest this will net her several hundred thousands of pounds in fees!

See
https://nhsreality.wordpress.com/…/nhs-executives-rehired-as-consultants-after-payoff

Exmouth/ EDDC: more of our money down the drain

“A report has highlighted that costs for Exmouth’s Queen’s Drive project have now more than doubled – from £1.5 million to £3.1 million.

The figures come as East Devon District Council (EDDC) continue looking for “fresh ideas” for the biggest chunk of the nine-acre development site – after sacking the previous developer, Moirai, over the summer.

They say they will be consulting with residents, businesses and tourists for this ‘third phase’ of the Queen’s Drive site in Exmouth.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/costs-double-for-exmouth-s-in-limbo-queens-drive-development/story-29858563-detail/story.html

Quiz Hernandez at EDDC scrutiny meeting this Thursday 3 November 6.00 pm

“Police and Crime Commissioner (pages 12 – 13)
The PCC, Alison Hernandez, will give a brief outline of her work since her election and respond to the questions submitted in advance (contained in the agenda papers) as well as answer questions put at the meeting.”

Click to access 031116-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

EDDC’s knuckles thrashed three times by Information Commissioner

From Save our Sidmouth website today. Coruscating condemnation of their secrecy over Knowle relocation.

“Knowle relocation project: BREAKING NEW

Information Commissioner tells East Devon District Council to publish documentation

News just in that the ICO have released three Decision Notices. They will be available on their website shortly:

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice

Meanwhile, here is an overview:

Case: FER0626901
Pegasus agreement re Knowle

The ICO are telling EDDC to come up with all of this:

“I would like the Council to disclose the details of the agreement it has entered into with Pegasus for the Knowle site.
I would like to see the full, unredacted version of the agreement.
I understand that the information at issue would not be exploited by a competitor and that disclosure would not place either party at a commercial disadvantage.
All parties, including Pegasus, will have known that they would be subject to the FOIA when the agreement was signed.
To reiterate, I would like the full publication of the commercial terms of the agreement.
I would like you to provide me with all of the documentation I have requested: in their original electronic versions and not in their scanned versions.”

From: Pegasus agreement re Knowle – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Case: FER0608237
Projected maintenance costs for relocation project

The ICO say EDDC don’t have to produce spreadsheets but have to publish the following re the new-build at Honiton:

“To disclose the price that the developer is prepared to pay for the land from the cash flow documents which the council withheld.”

The ‘Conclusions’ are interesting, however:

“53. There is a public interest in protecting the public purse, in this case this is balanced in this case against the public interest in allowing the public to scrutinise the council’s decisions and financial assumptions about the project to develop new offices for itself. This latter aspect clearly raises the level of transparency which would be expected as the council could be seen to be spending public money on its own facilities, for its own purposes. It has argued that it needs to change offices as overall, doing so would save the public money compared to staying in its current offices. The public however cannot know whether this is true without further information being open for them to scrutinise.”

With ref to:
Projected maintenance costs for relocation project – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Case: FER0623403
Decision process which led to the award of the conditional contract with Pegasus re Knowle

The ICO are telling EDDC to come up with the last from this list – EDDC having given the first 5, but not the 6th:

“I request information on the decision to award a contract to PegasusLife for the development of the Knowle site in Sidmouth, including, but not limited to:
1. Bid documentation provided to prospective bidders;
2. process for and criteria for selection of successful bidder;
3. Number of organisations who expressed an interest in bidding;
4. Number of organisations who submitted a bid;
5. Names of organisations who submitted a bid;
6. Minutes of meetings and correspondence on the subject.”

From:
Decision process which led to the award of the conditional contract with Pegasus re Knowle – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Scrutiny Committee scrutinises Police and Crime Commissioner – sort of, maybe

“Police and Crime Commissioner (pages 12 – 13)
The PCC, Alison Hernandez, will give a brief outline of her work since her election and respond to the questions submitted in advance (contained in the agenda papers) as well as answer questions put at the meeting.

[Owl is not quite sure why most questions seem to be about Exmouth]

… Questions put in advance to Police and Crime Commissioner for response on 3 November 2016

Bill Nash
EDDC Councillor for Exmouth Town Ward

Q1 What more can be done to overcome the extreme disturbance from Boy/Girl Racers in both cars & motor bikes?

The local Exmouth police monitored one of the five roads for speed where residents were being disturbed and woken at night. They concluded “that the results recommend no further action by enforcement or regulatory bodies “. Excessive noise is being caused by anti-social driving. What can be done?

Q2 Why is there not visible policing in Exmouth particularly at night? During the day there are very few PCSO’s visible.

Q3 Is Exmouth police station due to be closed completely as proposed in 2015? For a town of 38,000 rising to 50,000 in summer months a police presence should be available with public access – not just ” phone 101 “.

Alan Dent
Vice Chairman of Scrutiny Committee

Q4 What guarantee is there for our PCSOs to continue in employment?

Q5 What improvements have been made to the 101 service?

Richard Scott
Exmouth Town Councillor

Q6 I would like to know if Alison Hernandez is aware of the roadshow we held at Exmouth and if so could she explain what her office intends to do about one of the largest complaints, notably girl and boy racers on the seafront and the main thoroughfares from the sea front such as Carlton Hill, where speeds of double the speed limit are commonplace through residential streets?

Q7 Also could she explain why her office needs a head count of 20.3 and expenditure of 1.4 million, could this money and heads be better spent and used out on the streets of Devon and Cornwall?

Councillor Bruce de Saram Councillor for Exmouth Town Ward

Q8 Does the Police Commissioner agreed that one of the Licensing objectives is the Prevention of crime and disorder in which the Police are regarded as being the Lead Agency in implementing this strategy? Can you please confirm that Exmouth will definitely receive adequate support from the PCSO’s on the beat to achieve this objective so that the Police logs will clearly show when they are called out to deal with a licensing issue. This is because there has been confusion around this issue due to a lack of Police resources to attend and log the problem.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1901200/031116-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

More detail on Chief Constable conduct complaint

The complaint which led to an investigation into the conduct of Devon & Cornwall’s chief constable was made by defeated Devon Liberal Democrat MP Adrian Sanders, it has emerged.

Shaun Sawyer, the chief constable of Devon & Cornwall Police, has been placed under investigation for comments he made during an interview with the BBC – but denies any wrongdoing.

The investigation relates to comments about an inquiry into the declaration of general election expenses by Devon and Cornwall’s Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez.

Mrs Hernandez is currently being investigated following a complaint about alleged false accounting, relating to her role as the Conservative Party election agent in Torbay in May last year.

It was at the General Election that sitting Liberal Democrat MP Mr Sanders lost out to Conservative Kevin Foster, and Mrs Hernandez was the Tories’ election agent. She was elected as PCC in May this year.

In an interview with the BBC about the inquiry into Ms Hernandez, Mr Sawyer said that although “democracy is important” Parliament needed to consider procedures for dealing with complaints about the way elections are run.

He said: “This is taking up police time.

“It is taxpayers’ money.”

Mr Sawyer said in a statement on Tuesday: “I am aware that the OPCC (Office for the Police and Crime Commissioner) has received a complaint from a member of the public concerning comments I made in the course of a BBC interview regarding a police investigation into the Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez.

“This complaint has been considered by the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) and remitted back to the OPCC for resolution.

“I welcome an independent investigation into this complaint and look forward to hearing the outcome in due course.”

Gloucestershire Police has been brought in to carry out the investigation into Mr Sawyer, according to BBC Devon.

Read more: VIDEO – 89-year old Phyllis says next sting could be fatal in Bickleigh home wasp invasion battle

Mr Sanders welcomed the probe. He said: “You can’t make statements like that unless you have some background detail.

“He’s not in a position to know that detail, especially when it’s his boss who is the subject of investigation.”

The Devon & Cornwall force is investigating claims of false election expenses accounting by the Conservative Party at last year’s General Election.

In May this year magistrates approved an application from Devon & Cornwall Police to investigate four South West MPs, and the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner Ms Hernandez.

Because the investigation included Ms Hernandez, Devon & Cornwall chief constable Shaun Sawyer asked the West Mercia Constabulary to conduct inquiries on his behalf.

The inquiry is now being handled by the IPCC and is expected to be concluded by November.

Ms Hernandez denies any wrongdoing and has said she is ready to help with any inquiries.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/defeated-mp-made-complaint-against-devon-cornwall-chief-constable/story-29838762-detail/story.html

“Journalism is finding out what someone else doesn’t want you to know – everything else is public relations

Mid-Devon is one of the four councils that makes up the secretive “Greater Exeter”.

“THEY say that journalism is finding out what someone else doesn’t want you to know – everything else is public relations, writes Katie French.

This week especially that distinction has felt rather relevant.

With the news that two prominent councillors had been removed from their high-profile positions at Mid Devon District Council, it was important to find out why.

But how can a reporter get to the bottom of a story when those involved are not speaking to you?

This paper is regularly inundated with requests from the council for photo opportunities and self-congratulatory coverage but in the last seven days, the phones have been nigh on silent.

In a quest to get to the bottom of the Tiverton Portas Company investigation, repeated attempts have been made to contact councillors Sue Griggs and Neal Davey.

Neither has answered calls nor responded to emails.

This would all be very well if they hadn’t chosen a life in public office. But when you begin to take an allowance from the taxpayer to stand as a councillor, your decisions as a public servant open you up to a reasonable expectation of scrutiny.

Through their roles at the Tiverton Portas Company – Cllr Griggs as chair and Cllr Davey as secretary – the pair have become the trusted faces responsible for the £100,000 of government money supplied to improve the town.

Both have enjoyed ample column inches celebrating their successes. Yet when asked to comment on this investigation they have been silent.

This refusal to respond to reasonable requests has infuriated the chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

John O’Connell said: “Local residents will be incensed. This repeated refusal to speak to reporters shows a shocking contempt for scrutiny and transparency.

“The individuals responsible must be held to account. This is an utter disgrace and the council needs to sort it out without delay.”

But the councillors are not the only ones who have been difficult to reach.

Mid Devon District Council carried out the investigation into the Tiverton Portas Company after a complaint was made by a member of the public.

Numerous sources told this paper that a deficit of £18,000 had been discovered. That claim turned out to be unfounded but had the findings of the investigation – as presented to the standards committee on October 6 – been held in public, the claim would have had no credibility in the first place.

This increasing trend for public-funded bodies to attend to matters in private is not good for anyone – and it is not good enough.

As taxpayers we have a right to learn how our money is spent. Press and public should stand together and challenge unreasonable attempts to keep private matters relating to the taxpayer’s purse.

Next week a meeting will be held at Tiverton Town Council to discuss the findings of Mid Devon District Council’s audit.

It has been hinted that it will be held in chambers – meaning the press and public will be excluded.

This is not acceptable and the Gazette will be challenging the motion.

After all – if it is deliberately being held away from a reporter it’s likely there is going to be something worth hearing.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/public-servants-have-an-obligation-to-keep-us-informed-comment/story-29838892-detail/story.html

“Commons watchdog chair Sir Kevin Barron ‘breached’ MPs’ code of conduct “

“The Labour MP in charge of overseeing ethical standards for MPs has been found to have breached a committee’s code of conduct.

Sir Kevin Barron, the chairman of the standards committee, accepted payment for hosting events for a drug company in Parliament.

However, the committee has recommended that no further action is required against Sir Kevin after they concluded that the breach had been “minor” and “inadvertent”.

In March he announced that he had referred himself to Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, over the disclosures which were first revealed in the Telegraph.

The fees received by Sir Kevin after sponsoring three events in Parliament were donated to charity, and Ms Hudson concluded the breach of the rules was “at the least serious end of the spectrum” because the MP did not personally benefit.

The report recommended that no further action was required against the Labour MP, who stood aside while the committee examined his case, and the inquiry had raised “no doubts over Kevin Barron’s integrity and honesty”.

Parliamentary rules prohibit MPs from using Commons resources to “confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else”.

Sir Kevin said that his fees from the organisation had all been paid to charity, and therefore he had not breached the Code of Conduct.

But Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that members of the committee needed to be “whiter than white” and even if Sir Kevin had not personally received the money, the arrangement was still a breach of the rules.

Lord Bew, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, has called for an overhaul of the Commons standards committe, warning that it looks like an “insider’s game” in which MPs are “marking their own homework”.

Sir Kevin said: “The report published today has found no serious breaches as I always maintained. The inquiry has found a ‘minor’ and ‘inadvertent’ breach of a banqueting rule. I felt that I had taken all the steps I could to check the rules, but acknowledge my mistake.

“Just to make it absolutely clear, this arrangement led to no personal financial gain as payment was made, as a donation, to a local children’s hospice in my constituency.

“I would like to thank Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, for her very thorough investigation into this matter and the Committee on Standards for their judgment.

“I will be resuming my duties as chair of the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges. It has always been a huge honour to chair these committees and I am delighted to return to this role.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/20/commons-watchdog-chair-sir-kevin-barron-breached-mps-code-of-con/

Information Commissioner says Council business plans cannot be secret

Repercussions for EDDC? You can bet Exeter City Council will appeal!

“Exeter Green Party has clashed with Exeter City Council over secret information about the financial viability of St Sidwell’s Point.

The Greens made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to access parts of the business case for the planned council owned leisure complex.

They say the council has “persistently refused” to give them the information.

Green Party member Peter Cleasby complained to the Information Commissioner, the independent authority set up by Parliament to uphold public access to documents.

Mr Cleasby said the public had a legitimate right to see information shared privately to councillors about the financial viability of the leisure complex project.

The commissioner agreed, and has ordered the council to publish its estimates of income from the leisure centre.

The council are seeking advice regarding an appeal against this decision.

Mr Cleasby said: “The public were not consulted about whether we wanted the leisure centre or not. We were simply told that £26 million of the Council’s money would be spent on building it.

“We were not offered the chance to suggest other uses for £26 million, and we were not allowed to see the assumptions made by the Council about whether the leisure centre could be run without being a drain on public finances.

“So as an individual I asked for this information to be made available for scrutiny by others who could form an independent view on whether the numbers added up. The Council refused, three times changing their reasons for not releasing it.”

A council spokesperson hit back, saying: “The public were consulted multiple times in accordance with the open and transparent planning process for what will be one of the greenest schemes of its kind anywhere in the country.

“As Mr Cleasby has pointed out, we are entitled to appeal the Information Commissioner’s decision and we are taking appropriate advice.”

Diana Moore, former parliamentary candidate for the Green Party in Exeter, said: “Exeter Green Party are not opposed to a new leisure complex in principle, but openness and real public engagement are essential in major projects of this sort.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exeter-council-clash-with-greens-ahead-of-st-sidwell-s-point-planning-decision/story-29781273-detail/story.html