Category Archives: Scrutiny

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, Audit (EDDC), Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

“Unlawful decision by town council to open café led to £234k debt: watchdog”

A warning here for all councils.

“A town council did not give due consideration as to what powers it had to open a café, the decision was based on a poorly prepared business plan and, as a result, the decision to open the establishment was unlawful, the Auditor General for Wales has found.

Since opening the café in 2011, Connah’s Quay Town Council went on to incur a cumulative deficit of more than £234,000.

Finding failures in its decision making, the Auditor General’s report made three clear recommendations for the council to:

undertake a full option appraisal for the operation of Quay Café, incorporating a full financial appraisal of each option;

ensure appropriate advice is received prior to making decisions on the provision of new or novel services;

review the services it provides and ensure that it understands the statutory basis on which it provides those services.

The town council now has one month to consider the issues raised within the report and to make a decision on whether to accept these recommendations.

The Auditor General’s report is issued alongside public interest reports for Glynneath Town Council, Maenclochog Community Council and Cynwyd Community Council.

These reports set out significant failures in governance arrangements and inadequacies in financial management and internal control at all four councils.

The Auditor General for Wales, Adrian Crompton, said: “Given the scale of the deficit incurred at Connah’s Quay Town Council, I believe it is important that the public has a full and proper awareness of the events concerning the council. When it opened the café, the council did not have the statutory authority to do so and its decision was not supported by a clear and coherent business plan. As a result the decision was, in my view, unlawful.

“There are lessons to be learnt not just by this council, but by all town and community councils in Wales. The public interest reports issued today serve to highlight the shortcomings at four different town and community councils. Councils need to be innovative in dealing with community issues, but they must at all times display appropriate risk management and operate within their legal framework.”

Crompton added: “All four councils now have an opportunity to demonstrate that the risk of such governance failures recurring is reduced to a minimum. The public need to be assured that town and community councils have proper governance arrangements in place to manage the activities of the council both financially and administratively.”

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/governance/396-governance-news/40854-unlawful-decision-by-town-council-to-open-cafe-led-to-234k-debt-watchdog

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Grant Thornton, KPMG, Scrutiny, Sleaze

“Scandal-prone beancounter KPMG fined £40m after staff cheat on ethics exams and get illegal tip-offs about inspections”

Perhaps one of the TiggerTories first scrutiny and audit and governance efforts should be to check on its own auditors, Grant Thornton, who have also had their share of scandals!

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/10/14/eddcs-auditors-grant-thornton-in-the-bad-news-spotlight-again/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/08/29/grant-thornton-eddcs-past-and-present-auditor-in-record-fine-as-auditing-scandal-spreads/

“Tainted KPMG has been fined £40million because staff cheated on ethics exams and were given illegal tip-offs about inspections by regulators.

The accountancy firm was hit with the penalty in the US after the Securities and Exchange Commission uncovered a host of bad behaviour. Accountants at the firm shared the answers to internal training exams, the SEC said, including papers meant to grill them on ethics and integrity.

Staff also hacked the websites used to carry out the tests to make the pass score lower, allowing them to get through even if less than 25 per cent of answers were correct.

And senior employees at KPMG obtained confidential lists of audits being inspected by the American Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

This information allowed them to secretly alter reports so that the firm was less likely to be found to have carried out poor-quality work.

Jay Clayton, SEC chairman, said: ‘KPMG’s ethical failures are simply unacceptable.’

Steven Peikin, of the SEC’s enforcement division, said: ‘The breadth and seriousness of the misconduct at issue here is, frankly, astonishing.

‘This settlement reflects the need to severely punish this sort of wrongdoing while putting in place measures designed to prevent its recurrence.’ “

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-7151099/KPMG-fined-40m-staff-cheat-ethics-exams-illegal-tip-offs-inspections.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Ben Ingham, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Independent Group, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

Reply from EDDC Leader Ben Ingham on previous post

Councillor Ben Ingham, Leader of EDDC and the Independent Grouphas responded to the article below. He responded in red print, which Owl cannot reproduce, so his comnents are in BOLD and a

LARGER FONT

One of the reasons so many Independent councillors were elected was because they were not Tories! People had become sick of the way the district had been run for the last 45 years and demanded change. Part of that change was to see exactly what Tories had been up to in those 45 years when transparency was in short supply.

So, on 3 May, we were presented with:

31 Independents
(20 mostly eastern-based/central-based Independents,

(8 from Exmouth & Budleigh area – west)

11 mostly western-based Independent East Devon Alliance)

(Central and eastern)

19 Tories
8 Lib Dems
2 Greens

An alliance of Independents, Lib Dems and Greens would have produced 41 non-Tories – easily outnumbering 19 Tories.

36 would have been a workable maximum. Some were mutually exclusive.

What we now know happened is that eastern-based Independents (Leader Ben Ingham, Exmouth) refused to work with East Devon Alliance.

The EDA wanted to implement a Leadership Board of 6 at the annual meeting 22nd May, which was considered by the Independents as unnecessary, unworkable and definitely unconstitutional.

We assume that Lib Dems (who agreed to work with an Independent majority, but not form a coalition with them), were similarly excluded by Mr Ingham from working with his group.

The Lib Dems refused to join the cabinet or take up any part if the administration. They turned down Lead positions as well.

Instead, Mr Ingham chose to work with the 19 Tories, an ex-Tory (former Tory Leader Ian Thomas) and several so-called Independent councillors whose late-onset Independent roots had never been obvious or put to the test. He gave the job of Chairman of the Council to Stuart Hughes.

The Tories are not in our Cabinet whatsoever. They hold the Chair because we felt we needed an experienced Chair to make sure Full Council is run properly. This is a civic appointment only.

a Cabinet post to Ian Thomas, one of the jobs representing EDDC at Greater Exeter Strategic Plan meetings to Tory Philip Skinner.

that is not a GESP appointment. His influence iinsignificant (sic) or he would not be there.

and several other posts to other Tory councillors.

The outside bodies and panels are as they describe, not within the core team of the council

Owl has no idea what the two Green (Exmouth-based) councillors think of this arrangement.

They too were invited to join the cabinet or take Chairs/vice chairs. They declined everything until they are better acquainted with the Council’s functions, which is understandable.

Despite this, CEO Mark Williams presumably decided that there were NOT 31 Independents, but two kinds of totally different Independents (Independent Group, EDA).

Very foolishly, it was EDA who created the second group, without any consultation. Their leader insisted this was necessary to get the correct seat allocation. For the four previous years we were one group. EDA opted out with no discussion, therefore making the Tories the biggest group! The Independent group of 15 immediately worked to stop this by inviting the other 5 to join them, there was no choice. Otherwise the Tories would have challenged for leadership of EDDC as the largest group!

and declared Tories as the “official opposition” –

Fortunately the Independents did increase to 20, and stopped that happening, no thanks to the EDA!

in spite of them holding Cabinet and other posts.

No Tories in Cabinet

Is this constitutionally correct? How does one decide? One asks the CEO – dead end there, then!

This has led to a Tory (“official opposition”) Alan Dent, being the head of the Scrutiny Committee – the only committee that now has wide investigative powers.

The main opposition select the Chair of Scrutiny, just like we selected Roger Giles 4 years ago

The Chair of this committee can say Yes or No to requests for scrutiny of any subject – his word is the only word on what goes on an agenda (as long as the CEO agrees, of course).

So, is there any chance of the Scrutiny Committee holding the previous Tory administration to account? No, zero, zilch, nada in Owl’s view.

Your opinion, no evidence

So those Tory bodies – lying quietly tucked away for the last 45 years are almost certain to continue enjoying their slumbers.

Your opinion, no evidence

And all because some Independents can’t or won’t work with other Independents and local Lib Dems are keeping themselves well apart where, in other areas, coalitions of Independents, Greens and Lib Dems is promising real change in formerly true-blue districts.

Unfortunately the EDA leadership ruled EDA out by insisting on a leadership board and splitting the Independent Group in two. We were left on our own. The new 5 Independents would not work with the EDA.

What is so ironic about this whole story is that, in his political career, Ben Ingham has been a Tory councillor, an Independent Councillor and Leader of the East Devon Alliance!!!

And you were a die-hard socialist, but claim now to be an independent? All things must pass.

Pitiful and shameful.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Green (local), Ian Thomas, Lib Dem (local), Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Philip Skinner, Scrutiny, Stuart Hughes

Comments

1 Comment

East Devon District Council: will the Tory bodies ever be exhumed?

One of the reasons so many Independent councillors were elected was because they were not Tories! People had become sick of the way the district had been run for the last 45 years and demanded change. Part of that change was to see exactly what Tories had been up to in those 45 years when transparency was in short supply.

So, on 3 May, we were presented with:

31 Independents (20 mostly eastern-based/central-based Independents, 11 mostly western-based Independent East Devon Alliance)
19 Tories
8 Lib Dems
2 Greens

An alliance of Independents, Lib Dems and Greens would have produced 41 non-Tories – easily outnumbering 19 Tories.

What we now know happened is that eastern-based Independents (Leader Ben Ingham, Exmouth) refused to work with East Devon Alliance. We assume that Lib Dems (who agreed to work with an Independent majority, but not form a coalition with them), were similarly excluded by Mr Ingham from working with his group.

Instead, Mr Ingham chose to work with the 19 Tories, an ex-Tory (former Tory Leader Ian Thomas) and several so-called Independent councillors whose late-onset Independent roots had never been obvious or put to the test. He gave the job of Chairman of the Council to Stuart Hughes, a Cabinet post to Ian Thomas, one of the jobs representing EDDC at Greater Exeter Strategic Plan meetings to Tory Philip Skinner and several other posts to other Tory councillors. Owl has no idea what the two Green (Exmouth-based) councillors think of this arrangement.

Despite this, CEO Mark Williams presumably decided that there were NOT 31 Independents, but two kinds of totally different Independents (Independent Group, EDA) and declared Tories as the “official opposition” – in spite of them holding Cabinet and other posts. Is this constitutionally correct? How does one decide? One asks the CEO – dead end there, then!

This has led to a Tory (“official opposition”) Alan Dent, being the head of the Scrutiny Committee – the only committee that now has wide investigative powers. The Chair of this committee can say Yes or No to requests for scrutiny of any subject – his word is the only word on what goes on an agenda (as long as the CEO agrees, of course).

So, is there any chance of the Scrutiny Committee holding the previous Tory administration to account? No, zero, zilch, nada in Owl’s view.

So those Tory bodies – lying quietly tucked away for the last 45 years are almost certain to continue enjoying their slumbers.

And all because some Independents can’t or won’t work with other Independents and local Lib Dems are keeping themselves well apart where, in other areas, coalitions of Independents, Greens and Lib Dems is promising real change in formerly true-blue districts.

What is so ironic about this whole story is that, in his political career, Ben Ingham has been a Tory councillor, an Independent Councillor and Leader of the East Devon Alliance!!!

Pitiful and shameful.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Teignbridge: “Husband and wife given £200,000 ‘golden handshake’ when they left council”

“Husband and wife duo Neil and Sue Aggett left their posts at Teignbridge in 2018 and details revealed in the statement of accounts that have now been published on the council’s website reveal the pair received more than £200,000 as compensation for the loss of their employment

Two senior council officers who left Teignbridge District Council via voluntary redundancy as part of a major management reshuffle were given a more than £200,000 ‘golden handshake’, it can be revealed.

Husband and wife duo Neil and Sue Aggett left their posts at the council in 2018 after a combined nearly 60 years of service.

Mrs Aggett, who earned more than £80,000 a year, was the business lead for environment, health and wellbeing. She had spent more than 22 years working at the council.

Mr Aggett, who was the monitoring officer and democratic services manager for the council, had worked for the council for 37 years.

Details revealed in the statement of accounts that have now been published on the council’s website reveal the pair received more than £200,000 as compensation for the loss of their employment.

Mrs Aggett, as council director, was paid £123,586 as compensation for the loss of her employment, plus £8,468 as salary for the work she did between April 1 and April 30 when her employment ceased, and £1,236 in pension contributions, for a total of £133,298.

Mr Aggett, as monitoring officer, was paid £81,288 as compensation for the loss of his employment, plus £16,281 as salary for the work he did between April 1 and June 30 when his employment ceased, and £2,377 in pension contributions, for a total of £100,273.

Questions had previously been asked of the council as to the details of their pay-offs, including by Cllr Liam Mullone, leader of the Newton Says No group of councillors, when he called for full public disclosure regarding the reported large payments made to the pair at May’s annual council meeting.

In response, Cllr Alan Connett, the new portfolio holder for corporate resources, said that he could not reveal the details at that stage as the information in relation to exit packages for employees was exempt from disclosure and could not be revealed at that stage due to the agreements signed as part of their departures.

He added though that the details of the exit packages would be provided in the annual accounts under the Accounts and Audit Regulations, which has now taken place.

Cllr Connett at the council meeting also added: “We will be looking at whether in future we can adopt an open approach in Teignbridge and were we to have future instances of to achieving efficiencies via redundancies, we would want there to be public knowledge of those payments upfront.”

He added that if in future they had to say goodbye to more staff in the interest of efficiency and to save money, it would only be done is there would be a long term saving made and that they would try and be open and transparent about payments.

Phil Shears, the council’s managing director, had said last year that he was restructuring the management of the council which in the long term would save money, which would in turn ‘benefit local tax payers by keeping tax increases low.

He took over as the managing director of the council at the start of 2018 following the departure of former CEO Nicola Bulbeck.

She was given a £264,000 pay-off when she left her role after an 11-year stint in June 2017 including an award of £173,000 as ‘compensation for loss of employment’.

Her leaving package was initially kept secret from the public and the council turned down a Freedom of Information request to release the figures, but was revealed in the 2017/18 statement of accounts.

Mr Shears’s salary when he was appointed was in the range between £94,656 – £105,168 – a 25 per cent reduction on the £141,972 remuneration in the 2015/16 financial year that Ms Bulbeck was paid.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/husband-wife-given-200000-golden-2972079

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny

“Campaign to keep Brighton General Hospital land public”

“CAMPAIGNERS fighting to keep Brighton General Hospital land in public ownership are calling for more people to get involved.

About 100 people heard NHS campaigners, councillors and two MPs at a public meeting speak about the using the site for low-cost social housing.

Plans to redevelop the former Victorian workhouse at the top of Elm Grove are under discussion.

A new community health hub is proposed for the current ambulance station site, with a GP surgery and pharmacy, along with existing services for mental health, podiatry and early parenting. Health chiefs have said the cost of the project could be funded by selling the rest of the site for housing.

When Brighton and Hove City Council’s health and wellbeing board was given a briefing in November last year, one suggestion was the site be used to build homes for health workers.

An online petition, calling for meaningful public consultation about the future of the site, as well as asking for community beds and homes for social rent has more than 1,300 signatures.

Green councillor David Gibson said the site was a public asset in a city with “horrendous” housing problems. He added the Greens and Labour councillors and activists from the Brighton Housing Coalition, Sussex Defend The NHS and the Save Whitehawk Hill group had come together to shift the agenda to social housing.

Cllr Gibson said: “Privatisation and inequality have gone together. This country has become one of the most unequal countries in the developed world.

“You get better outcomes if you narrow inequality. If you want to narrow inequality, you need public provision, public support and public services which are decent.”

He said the council’s chief executive Geoff Raw would be meeting the board of the Brighton General landowner, Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust, to discuss options.

The campaign is pushing for the site to be taken into council ownership.

Carolyn Pickering, of Sussex Defend The NHS, reminded the audience the NHS freed people from the fear of choosing which child to spend their savings on if one became ill. She said: “The land is still part of the NHS. The NHS belongs to us and the land belongs to us so they should not be allowed to sell it.”

Council leader Nancy Platts said: “We will be inviting all interested parties into meetings about the Brighton General site and this includes the Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust as well as those campaigning about the future use of the site.”

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17673627.campaign-to-keep-brighton-general-hospital-land-public/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

Sign up to help REALLY scrutinise EDDC (or any other council’s) spending last financial year

“Today Bureau Local launches an exciting pilot project for a new kind of collaboration – and we need your help!

During a set period each year the public has the right to inspect the accounts and related documents of every local authority in the UK. The power is supposed to make local government, and other public bodies, more accountable. In reality, most people are unaware of their rights and fewer still are making use of them.

This is where you come in!

We are looking for people to take part in a trial crowdsourced local democracy project, where network members sign up to make use of this law to scrutinise the finances of their local authority throughout June (in England, times vary in other parts of the UK).

We hope you will help us find more information about the property consultants advising local councils on their investments. But you will also be able to use the guide we have created to look at and get copies of other documents that interest you too.

We hope the information we obtain will lead to local and national stories. But we also plan to submit our findings to the government, as we have done previously during our ongoing investigation into council finances, and to take what we learn from this pilot and hopefully turn it into a yearly event.

Read our guide to this project

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RhOWI7FT82xC9Cdgi4an1KZ5rfT78S93NVy69FqVPBQ/mobilebasic

and the law it is based on. Then you can sign up using this spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xbbq3rgu1MfF11ckbVa37pJdFN43V5hCbx6EV_8YnIs/htmlview

Once you have done that let our reporter

garethdavies@tbij.com

know and he will add you to the newly created channel on our Slack.

Also, if you would like to take part in this project or would like to know more, we will be holding an open newsroom in the #newsroom channel of our Slack between 1pm and 2pm on Thursday 6 June.”

https://mailchi.mp/tbij/our-latest-story-is-out-we-announce-a-local-democracy-project-and-a-new-open-newsroom-series-last-chance-to-be-our-new-community-organiser?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

“Peer who never spoke in Lords last year claims £50,000 expenses””

“A Labour peer claimed almost £50,000 in attendance and travel expenses covering every single day the House of Lords was sitting last year, despite never speaking or asking any written questions, a Guardian investigation reveals.

The former trade union general secretary David Brookman was among dozens of other lords and baronesses who never took part in a single debate, while almost a third of the 800 peers barely participated in parliamentary business over a 12-month period despite costing almost £3.2m in allowances.

The details have emerged from a new analysis of public data that will raise fresh questions about the size and effectiveness of the Lords, and the funds that can be claimed by those who fail to regularly contribute.

The findings show:

Eighty-eight peers – about one in nine – never spoke, held a government post or participated in a committee at all.

Forty-six peers did not register a single vote, including on Brexit, sit on a committee or hold a post. One peer claimed £25,000 without voting, while another claimed £41,000 but only voted once.

More than 270 peers claimed more than £40,000 in allowances, with two claiming more than £70,000.

The former Lords speaker Frances D’Souza, a long-term advocate of reform, said the findings corroborated “what everyone suspects is going on”, and that a minority of peers risked discrediting the hard work of their colleagues.

“There’s clearly a need to reduce numbers,” Lady D’Souza said, adding that the research “clearly shows there are people who are attending the House of Lords who are not contributing, and therefore they are simply redundant”.

The Guardian’s analysis covers the attendance, participation and allowances claims of 785 lords serving for a full year between 2017 and 2018. They comprise 244 Conservatives, 196 Labour and 97 Liberal Democrats, as well as 248 crossbench peers and various others.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/30/labour-peer-never-spoke-house-of-lords-claims-50000-expenses?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Economy, Growth Strategy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Those optimistic “growth” figures from our LEP look even more unlikely

“Calling an organisation the “UK 2070 Commission” is not without its risks. Who cares what happens that far out?

But that, in a sense, is the point. The commission, set up to investigate Britain’s “marked regional inequalities”, publishes its first report today. And, as its chairman Lord Kerslake puts it: “If you want to understand what happens in economics, you need to look 50 years back and 50 years out.” Indeed, as the commission notes: “The reference to 2070 is an explicit recognition that the timescales for successful city and regional development are often very long, in contrast to the short-termism of political cycles.”

A Brexit-addled government nicely illustrates that — not that it’ll have been any surprise to Lord Kerslake, the ex-head of the home civil service. And in these distracted times, the report is doubly welcome. It kills the myth that inequality is not on the rise and helps to explain Brexit — or at least the disparity between Remainer London and the Brexiteer regions.

The report finds London “de-coupling from the rest of the UK”. And to nobody’s benefit. Research from Sheffield University professor Philip McCann finds the “UK is interregionally more unequal” than 28 of the 30 advanced OECD countries, the exceptions being Ireland and Slovakia.

Productivity in the capital is 50 per cent higher than the rest of the UK. Indeed, similar growth between 1992 and 2015 from cities outside London would have added at least “£120 billion to the national economy”. And, on present trends, half of the UK’s future jobs growth will be in London and the South East, which accounts for only 37 per cent of the population.

The effects show up everywhere. Healthy life expectancy in the UK’s poorest regions is “19 years lower”. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found in 2016 that dealing with the effects of poverty costs the UK £78 billion a year. And, even then, poor is a relative term. The children’s commissioner for England found that “a child who is poor enough for free school meals in Hackney, one of London’s poorest boroughs, is still three times more likely to go on to university than an equally poor child in Hartlepool”.

No one wins from such imbalances. People and businesses in the North “miss out on the benefits of growth” — forcing more spending on benefits. But those in “overheating” London and the South East find “increasing pressures on living costs and resources”, so reducing “quality of life”. That forces spending on pricey infrastructure, exacerbating the imbalances. Hence Crossrail, a phase-one HS2 skewed to the capital and an environmentally damaging third Heathrow runway.

So, what to do? Well, here the commission suggests a mix of regional devolution and German-style national planning. It points to the eye-popping €1.5 trillion spent post-unification to help to bring east Germany up to speed with the west. For Britain, it proposes an extra £10 billion spend annually for the next 25 years: a fabulous sum equating to 0.5 per cent of GDP. Lord Kerslake says it’s for government to decide whether it would come from borrowings, tax or such things as levies on uplifts in property values.

Yet he reckons “higher regional growth rates would over time offset this cost”. He emphasises, too, that this is just an initial report, seeking feedback. And don’t the divisions over Brexit underline that Britain needs to do something? Waiting until 2070 isn’t an option.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Privatisation, Scrutiny

“Government spends almost £100m on Brexit consultants”

Owl says: When people such as “Failing Grayling” (chaos in all departments he has run, the latest being transport) and Swire’s choice for PM Dominic Raab (the Brexit Minister who didn’t realise how much traffic to and from the EU goes through Dover) in charge – was it money well spent?

And how come these consultants had all the experts and the civil service didn’t?

“… The vast bulk (96%) of the Brexit consultancy expenditure under Cabinet Office arrangements – which accounts for £65m of the £97m total – has so far been handed to six consultancy companies: Deloitte, PA Consulting, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Ernst & Young, Bain & Company and Boston Consulting Group.

Five departments: the Cabinet Office, Home Office, Border Delivery Group, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, account for the majority of spending via the Cabinet Office. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/government-spends-almost-100m-brexit-consultants

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Austerity cuts, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

“English councils warned about use of reserve cash”

Somerset, which oversees funds being spent by our Local Enterprise Partnership, is one of the councils mentioned in this BBC article.

“Some councils in England have been warned they risk running out of cash reserves if recent spending continues.

Analysis by the BBC has identified 11 authorities the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (Cipfa) said would have “fully exhausted” reserves within four years unless they topped them up.

The Local Government Association said councils faced “systemic underfunding”.

The government said councils were responsible for managing their funds.
Councils have faced cuts to their government funding and rising demand for services such as social care, while MPs have warned children’s services are at “breaking point”.

Cash reserves – money held back for specific projects or emergencies, such as flooding – are seen as a measure of financial security.

Between them the 152 major councils in England had £14bn in reserve in March 2018, £500m more than the year before but £400m less than in 2015.

The BBC analysis of government data follows work by Cipfa, which published a “resilience” index of councils, but stopped short of naming those it warned were depleting reserves the fastest.

The warning was based on the latest data available, comparing reserves as of March 2018 with March 2015.

The analysis reveals which 11 of the 152 major English councils have used so much of their reserves since 2015 that Cipfa said they would run out within four years if spending patterns continued.

The research comes ahead of Wednesday’s Panorama, which reveals the failings of the social care system as the population gets older and more people need help with day to day living. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48280272

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Ben Ingham, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Martin Shaw (Seaton), Scrutiny

East Devon Alliance county councillor Martin Shaw adds his thoughts about TiggerTories

From his blog “Seaton and Colyton Matters”:

“I was unfortunately unable for personal reasons to attend last night’s annual meeting of EDDC, but many Independent supporters who were there have expressed considerable disappointment. I have however close knowledge of the situation and offer the following comments.

Mandate for change

On May 2nd, after 45 years of increasingly dysfunctional rule by the Conservatives at East Devon District Council, the local electorate reduced their number to just 19 of the 60 councillors. Instead voters elected a majority of 31 Independents, including 11 members of the East Devon Alliance (EDA), 8 Liberal Democrats, and 2 Greens.

A clear mandate was given by local people. Big gains by Independents – both EDA and others – Liberal Democrats and Greens all represented their desire for change. The best administration would have been a coalition of some of these groups, which could have formed a progressive majority of up to 40 seats out of 60.

A new ‘Independent Group’ excludes the East Devon Alliance

Before the elections, all Independent councillors including EDA members were part of the Independent Group, led by Ben Ingham. EDA expected this to continue and looked forward to working with other Independents to form a progressive new administration, possibly in cooperation with the Liberal Democrats and Greens.

However on the day after the elections, Ben formed a new Independent Group, which EDA councillors were not invited to join. He was elected leader and Susie Bond deputy leader. As a result of this exclusion, EDA councillors formed their own group but continued to work for an alliance of EDA with the Ingham-led Independent Group.

The Independent Group relies on the discredited Tories

Since the new Independent Group with 20 members is the largest group on EDDC, they had the right to take the initiative in forming an administration. In this light the EDA leader, Paul Arnott, was happy to second Ingham’s nomination as Leader of the Council.

However there was no justification for the Independent Group, with only one-third of all councillors, to form an exclusively Independent Group cabinet. Even the outgoing Conservative administration, which had an overall majority, was more inclusive, including some non-Conservatives in the Cabinet.

In both the Axe Valley and the Sid Valley, the East Devon Alliance had routed the Conservatives, but in Ben’s selection of his new Cabinet and chairs of key committees, he could find no place for EDA Independents from these areas. The east of East Devon is once again drastically under-represented in the EDDC leadership.

Rewarding the discredited Tory party

Clearly there were personal issues here – Ben had left EDA after being voted out as leader in 2017 – but we had still collaborated in the old Independent Group. Nothing can justify Ben’s apparent decision now to rely more on the defeated Tories than on his fellow Independents.

The Conservatives are the official opposition, entitling them to the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee. But the Independent Group have also allowed them to take the key positions of Chair of the Council and Chair of the Development Management Committee. In contrast they offered EDA only the position of Vice-Chair of the Council. In addition they appear to have voted members of the discredited Tories on to other bodies, at the expense of EDA and Lib Dem candidates.

At the very moment when the electorate voted for change, and the Conservative Party has lost all credibility nationally as well as locally, the EDDC Independent Group seems to have breathed life back into this exhausted party and allowed it to keep several important positions, while turning its back on the other advocates of change.

A way forward

The East Devon Alliance believes that many members of the Independent Group share our desire for change at EDDC. They must surely realise that yesterday was a highly embarrassing false start.

Despite the way that group has chosen to form its administration, I know the EDA group will support them, as the Lib Dems have also said they will, when they propose positive policies for the benefit of East Devon, as well as seeking their support for our own proposals.

In particular, I welcome the fact that when questioned by Paul Arnott, Ben Ingham yesterday repeated his long-held position that EDDC should consider the option of a more collaborative Committee system, rather than the all powerful Leader-with-CEO and small Cabinet model which he has inherited, which leaves most councillors with little real input into major decisions (as I know from the County Council).

In any case, EDA councillors will have healthy proportionate representation on key committees such as Planning, Strategic Planning, Scrutiny, Audit & Governance and Overview, and I am certain that this will give them many opportunities to change the district council in a collaborative and positive way.

We must now hope that despite yesterday, both groups of Independents together with the Lib Dems and Greens can do some real work for local communities in the new Council. “

A false start at EDDC sees new ‘Independent Group’ relying on the discredited Tories rather than the East Devon Alliance, Lib Dems and Greens who local communities voted for in order to achieve change. And the Axe Valley is left out in the cold again.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Corruption, Developers/ Development, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny, Transparency

Surprise, surprise: the business people running Local Enterprise Partnerships are not attracting funding – from business people!

As Owl has been saying for YEARS – THESE EMPERORS HAVE NO CLOTHES!!!!! Neither do they have transparency or accountability.

It’s verging on the corrupt, definitely a conflict of interest and is certainly unethical – it means a very, very few business people, taking no risks for themselves or their businesses, divvying up OUR money for their own pet projects, with almost no oversight from the councils they have robbed of funds and no loss for them if projects fail or over-run in time or cost.

A national scandal.

“Private sector firms are not matching public sector funding for local regeneration, senior civil servants have admitted.

Two senior civil servants at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government told MPs on Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that cash from the EU, public sector and higher education are still the main sources for funding regional development projects.

The department’s permanent secretary Melanie Dawes and director general Simon Ridley said match funding for the £9.1bn Local Growth Fund is largely dependent on match funding from councils and other public bodies.

Ridley also admitted there were still challenges over transparency and the boundaries of some Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

The LEPs were set up following the abolition of regional development agencies with the idea that they would be a partnership between business and local government – with an expectation that firms would help funding regional regeneration.

Ridley told the committee that the main private sector input into the LEPs is the time and expertise of board members who work for free.

Committee member Anne Marie Morris said: “Clearly, you are having the private sector involved, so how come you haven’t got a significant financial commitment from them?”

Ridley responded: “The capacity funding we give requires match from the LEP in different ways.

“A large number of business people on the boards do it without renumeration. A lot of the capacity support around the accountable body that the local authority provides is paid for by the LEP.

“Our core expectation was to set up partnerships between the private sector and local government to think about local area development.

“Some of those funding streams are matched by private sector funding schemes.”

Committee chair Meg Hillier asked if developers and construction firms were giving over and above Section 106 contributions to enable projects.

She said: “There is a danger that without having any skin in the game, businesses can walk away and local taxpayers end up picking up the bill.”

Ridley replied: “What the LEP is seeking to do is bring forward projects in the local area that wouldn’t otherwise be coming forward.

“They are often funded by more than one funding stream from the public sector.”

The committee also challenged the pair over a claim that LEPs tended to go to the top-five local employers and as a result, other firms were being left out of key decisions.

Oxford University has become a major decision-maker for its LEP, the committee heard.

Committee member Layla Moran asked: “How do we know that everyone who is a stakeholder in this money is actually involved in the decision?”

Hillier also questioned if the LEPs were accountable, citing Oxfordshire, where meetings were not being held in public.

Dawes said the use of scores in the LEPs annual performance review were conditional for funding being released and this had impacted on responses.

She said: “The real test is how it feels for local communities and I think that’s something that’s very difficult for us to judge in central government. We are on a bit of a journey here. It’s going to take a while.”

Ridley said local authorities had a crucial role in oversight, specifically through Section 151 officers who are ideally placed to deal with complaints.

He said: “All LEPs have got their complaints procedures. We have a clearer role realisation with the accountable body and the 151 officer, so they [the public] might write to them.

“The section 151 officer does have to get all the information that goes to the LEP board. I can’t personally here guarantee that absolutely all of that is in front of every scrutiny committee.”

Dawes confirmed the department has no metrics for assessing complaints being made about the LEPs.

MPs also raised concern about territorial battles between LEPs and combined authorities.

Decisions have still yet to be made about the boundaries in nine LEPs.

Dawes told the committee: “There are legitimate reasons why these geography questions are there. We are working actively with them.

“What ministers will have to work through is whether to impose a decision centrally.

“That would be a matter of last resort.”

Businesses failing on LEP match funding, MPs told

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency, Voting

Tories for Trumpery? Drafting new law to protect MPs on party overspending

Tories draft law to protect MPs if parties overspend

“Conservative ministers are drawing up a new law to protect MPs and party officials from prosecution if their national parties overspend during elections, leaked documents disclose.

It follows the conviction in January of Marion Little, a Tory party organiser from head office, and the acquittal of the MP Craig Mackinlay after they were accused of breaking electoral law as the party fought off a challenge from Nigel Farage in Thanet South. …

Transparency campaigners believe the government’s latest move is an attempt to avoid future prosecutions and would overturn a ruling by the supreme court.

Alexandra Runswick, the director of Unlock Democracy, said a “test of authorisation” would give candidates and party officials another level of defence from prosecution. “Such a move would not appear to be about reinforcing and strengthening electoral law. This would instead protect party candidates and open up the possibility of outspending rivals.”

Plans for a new law have emerged in correspondence seen by the Guardian and sent to cabinet ministers by Kevin Foster, the minister for the constitution.

“Legislation currently requires candidates to account for free or discounted goods or services that are made use of by or on behalf of the candidate. There have been calls to amend this legislation to include a test of authorisation by or on behalf of the candidate,” he wrote.

Foster told members of a cabinet subcommittee that the law on notional expenditure was tested in July when the supreme court ruled that the statutory requirement for an election candidate is to declare notional expenditure incurred on their behalf during a campaign. This might arise where a national party provided additional campaigning support in the constituency and was not limited to authorised campaigning.

Foster wrote: “There is a concern that candidates, their electoral agents and others acting on their behalf could be operating under legal risk. I am seeking the committee’s agreement to announce at an appropriate time that the government is exploring options to clarify the law on notional expenditure to alleviate the concerns highlighted. Any amendments in this area of law would require primary legislation,” he wrote.

Little, who had been employed by Tory campaign headquarters since 1974, was charged with three counts of encouraging or assisting an offence related to the filing of election expenses. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/21/tories-draft-law-protect-mps-party-overspend

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Government lacks transparency over local authority governance

“There is a complete lack of transparency over the government’s handling of local authorities with governance issues, MPs have warned.

A damning report from the Public Accounts Committee has called on the government to strengthen audit and governance of the “complex and fast-moving” environment that local authorities find themselves in.

The cross-party group of MPs warned that local authorities are now pursuing shared services and taking on commercial risk, but are simultaneously dealing with a “significant” reduction in resources.

The report noted that while some authorities have robust arrangements, others are under strain and have “audit committees that do not provide sufficient assurance, ineffective internal audit, weak arrangements for the management of risk in local authorities’ commercial investments, and inadequate oversight and scrutiny”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government’s oversight of local authority governance has until now been “reactive and ill-informed”, the report said. However, it noted that the department has now committed to improving its oversight.

MPs said that MHCLG lacks reliable information on key governance risks and relies on weak sources of information, meaning it has “no way of pinpointing at-risk councils”. They also said that the department is not focused on long-term risks to council finances.

“There is a complete lack of transparency over both the department’s informal interventions in local authorities with financial or governance problems and the results of its formal interventions,” the PAC said.

The report claimed that taxpayers have a right to know if there are problems with their councils’ finances. It cited the demise of Northamptonshire County Council, which it said was an ‘open secret’ but only for those in the sector.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said: “On the rare occasions a local authority fails, the impact on local citizens is severe. Residents facing decimated services get no comfort from being told that their council’s dire finances were “an open secret”.

“The government needs to recognise the extra pressure that squeezed budgets and increased commercial risks are having on local government and make sure it is monitoring the risks effectively so that it can be alert to the impact of changes on local government.”

MHCLG has been contacted for a response.”

Appearing before the PAC in March:

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/03/whiteman-local-government-finance-needs-be-more-transparent

CIPFA chief executive Rob Whiteman called for an improvement in local government audit.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/05/mhclg-oversight-local-authority-governance-reactive-and-ill-informed

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Scrutiny

“Carillion’s ‘relationship with auditors too comfortable’ “

“Ninety-three per cent of construction industry suppliers think the relationship between the ill-fated firm and its auditors, KPMG, was “too cosy”, according to a poll of construction industry leaders.

A further 57% of respondents believed that reforming the ‘big four’ audit firms – PwC, KPMG, EY and Deloitte – is a necessary step.

The poll, which surveyed more than 50 senior managers across the construction sector, found that 76% believed the Financial Reporting Council was too timid in its challenging of questionable financial information.

Mark Robinson, chief executive of Scape Group, which carried out the poll, said: “We need to be able to have faith in company accounts and the work auditors are carrying out, especially when public sector contracts and people’s livelihoods are at risk.

“Greater oversight and closer management of auditing practices [is needed] in the search to rebuild trust in the industry, but we also need to make sure we are putting in place sensible reforms that do not put increased cost pressures on an industry that is already contending with the cost of materials and reduced access to labour.”

The report from Scape Group also found that 64% of respondents thought that Carillion’s downfall was owing to debt mismanagement, acquisitions and long payment terms, created by a focus on revenue rather than profit.

The Competition & Markets Authority recently suggested that the ‘big four’ separate their audit work from the rest of their consultancy work. This move, CIPFA said, could have implications for local government.

KPMG and the FRC have been contacted for comment.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/05/carillions-relationship-auditors-too-comfortable

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze

MPs claiming expenses for adult children

“The Daily Telegraph says it has discovered that MPs – including Energy minister Claire Perry – are boosting their expenses by claiming for adult children dependent on them.

According to the paper, the age limit when claiming for children is 18, rising to 21 for certain exceptions.

Ms Perry says all her claims are made in accordance with the rules; two other MPs have told the Telegraph they will return money.

The paper’s leader column says the rules may have changed in the wake of the expenses scandal 10 years ago – but it is clearly going to take a long time to remake the culture in Westminster.

It concludes by advising politicians to listen to the words of Lord Tebbit – “If you wouldn’t be happy to read something about yourself on the front pages, don’t do it.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48235813

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Scrutiny, Sleaze

“Expenses watchdog hushed up revelation 377 MPs had credit cards suspended”

“The parliamentary expenses watchdog tried to cover up data showing 377 MPs, including nine cabinet ministers, have had their credit cards suspended for wrong, incomplete or late claims.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), set up in the wake of the expenses scandal 10 years ago, initially tried to claim the information should not be released because it could hinder the operation of the expenses system.

However, a former high court judge reversed the decision and released the information to the Daily Telegraph on appeal, saying that the risk of “embarrassing” MPs was no reason to keep the information secret.

It mirrors the initial reluctance of parliamentary authorities to release information on MPs’ expenses 10 years ago, when the scandal was uncovered only when it was leaked to the same newspaper.

The release of the credit card data showed MPs are regularly having their credit cards suspended for failing to provide receipts in a timely fashion or claiming for disallowed items, with 377 MPs sanctioned since 2015.

Claire Perry, the energy and climate change minister who attends cabinet, admitted wrongly using her parliamentary credit card to pay for her Amazon Prime subscription.

Since the 2015 election, 377 MPs have all had their credit cards suspended, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show.

Repeat offenders include Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, and nine MPs who have had their card suspended more than 10 times over the past three years. Damian Collins, the chair of the Commons media committee, and Chloe Smith, a Cabinet Office minister, have each both had their credit cards suspended 14 times.

Other cabinet ministers subject to suspensions include Stephen Barclay, Greg Clark, Chris Grayling, Robert Buckland, Rory Stewart, Jeremy Wright and David Mundell.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, Tom Watson, the deputy leader, and Boris Johnson, the Tory leadership contender, were also among those to have had their cards suspended.

A spokesman for Rudd said: “Some payment deadlines were missed by the member of staff responsible for these matters. These issues were subsequently resolved.”

Collins said one case was to do with removal costs being challenged and otherwise “it was simply a case of being late in getting the reconciliation of the card payments back to Ipsa”.

A Labour spokesman said: “Our MPs’ offices rectify all such administrative issues as soon as they are identified.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/08/expenses-watchdog-hushed-up-revelation-377-mps-had-credit-cards-suspended?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

What is our Local Enterprise Partnership up to?

Well, if you strip out the projects that are actually “stand alone” and directly-funded by its members from its latest newsletter – not very much at all – and all funded by money that used to go directly to local authorities (and not a murmer about their biggest project – Hinkley C nuclear power station:

https://mailchi.mp/heartofswlep/hotsw-lep-march-newsletter?e=9367babecc

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Scrutiny

“Government issues new statutory guidance for authorities in England on scrutiny”

Bet MINORITY party Tories will be MUCH more keen on this than they were when in power!

“The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has issued new statutory guidance for local and combined authorities in England on scrutiny of their decision-making.

It said councils were being “encouraged to embrace scrutiny of their spending decisions to achieve value for money, improve services and address the public’s concerns”.

The guidance, which can be viewed here

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overview-and-scrutiny-statutory-guidance-for-councils-and-combined-authorities

stresses the role of scrutiny committees in holding authorities to account over local decision-making. It outlines what effective scrutiny looks like and the positives it can bring to local authorities.

Key points highlighted by the Ministry include:

councils should adopt a position of sharing any information asked for by their scrutiny committee, and if information cannot be shared in public they should consider sharing it in a closed session;

scrutiny committees should be constructive ‘critical friends’ with a vital role of amplifying the voices and concerns of the public when councils take important decisions;

local authorities should also consider whether contracts with companies delivering services should include a requirement to supply information to scrutiny committees.

Rishi Sunak, Minister for Local Government, said: “Scrutiny committees form an integral part of the work of councils in delivering services by acting on behalf of residents to hold councillors and staff to account for the important decisions they make.

“That is why I have set out new guidance to ensure authorities and residents can reap the benefits of effective scrutiny, by instilling a culture that welcomes challenge.”

The Centre for Public Scrutiny assisted the Ministry in developing the guidance. Its chief executive, Jacqui McKinlay, said: “We welcome government’s timely revision of its statutory guidance on scrutiny, and particularly its focus on leadership buy-in, culture and behaviours that are so central to ensuring that effective overview and scrutiny can operate, and make an impact, at local level.

“We look forward to working closely with our colleagues at the Local Government Association and individual councils to use the new guidance as an excellent opportunity to reflect and review their current approach to scrutiny.”

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/governance/396-governance-news/40497-government-issues-new-statutory-guidance-for-authorities-in-england-on-scrutiny