How you explain snout in trough when you are a Tory MP

A Conservative MP advocated in favour of subsidies for the biomass industry after accepting more than £50,000 in political donations and hospitality from companies in the sector.

Nigel Adams, who has accepted tens of thousands of pounds in hospitality and political donations from biomass firms both in and outside his constituency, has called parliamentary debates, tabled questions, written opinion pieces, and written to the prime minister in support of subsidies for the industry.

But records compiled by Energydesk, the journalistic arm of Greenpeace, and shared with BuzzFeed News, show that on a number of occasions he did not mention the donations when he advocated for biomass – a sustainable form of energy generation based on burning wood pellets or other materials instead of coal and gas – over other forms of renewable energy such as onshore wind.

Parliamentary rules allow MPs to accept donations and hospitalities from businesses and others provided they are declared on official registers, as Adams’ contributions were. The rules also require MPs to “open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees”.

Adams told BuzzFeed News he referred to his hospitality and donations from biomass companies in parliamentary proceedings when his interventions were “substantively” about the industry.

Hospitality he accepted includes an £8,578 three-night trip to the Ritz-Carlton hotel in New Orleans to speak at a biomass conference. Adams accepted a further four trips to the same conference in following years, held at the five-star Fontainebleau on Miami Beach, a holiday spot beloved of America’s elite.

Adams’ trips to the resort from 2013 to 2016, worth £5,460, £7,177, £4,210, and £4,950 respectively, were funded by Eggborough Power Limited and Draw Power Limited, both of which operate biomass plants in Adams’ Selby and Ainsty constituency.

Adams also accepted auction prizes worth a total of £17,800 from another biomass producer from outside his constituency, Simec, as well as a trip to Dubai worth £2,850 to attend a pro-Brexit event in the city for UK expats.

In 2015, Adams held a debate on scrapping subsidies for onshore wind, during which he described it as being “about as much use as a chocolate fireguard”, claiming it was inferior to biomass in handling spikes in demand – naming Drax and Eggborough in his speech – and stating that cutting wind subsidies would “allow other, more efficient technologies to benefit from government support”. He made no mention of his contributions from the sector in that debate.

Similarly, in March 2016 Adams urged Andrea Leadsom, then an energy minister, to increase deployment of biomass, without making any mention of his contributions from Drax, Simec, or Eggborough.

Adams heads parliament’s all-party group on biomass, which is funded by the industry, and in 2012 urged then prime minister David Cameron to prioritise biomass subsidies over onshore wind. He also held a further debate on biomass, in which he declared he had received contributions from the sector.

Adams has declared all of these donations on the official registers of MPs’ interests as required and said he believes he has not breached any parliamentary rules because he has declared his interests in parliamentary proceedings. However, his failure to declare these interests on some occasions has drawn criticism.

Tamasin Cave of the lobbying transparency group Spinwatch told BuzzFeed News Adams risked the appearance of conflicts of interest – likening his situation to that of recently appointed Evening Standard editor George Osborne.

“Who does Mr Adams think he is working for?” she said. “A few transatlantic trips and fine dining could leave someone a bit muddled.

“And as George Osborne has just demonstrated, it’s clear that some in parliament don’t take their public role that seriously. With all eyes on Brexit, we also arguably have less scrutiny of what our MPs are up to.”

Greenpeace told BuzzFeed News that Adams raised concerns about conflicts of interest.

“As an MP, he has some serious questions to answer about whose interests he’s been looking after – the common good or the biomass industry funding his trips to Miami Beach,” said Greenpeace campaigner Hannah Martin.

Martin added that Greenpeace had concerns about biomass because in its view it has question marks over sustainability not shared by other energy sources.

“Ministers have spent millions of taxpayers’ money on controversial biomass when they could have invested it in far cleaner and more mature technologies like onshore and offshore wind. As a staunch advocate of biomass and a fierce critic of onshore wind, Nigel Adams bears at least some responsibility for a policy whose environmental and economic benefits remain in doubt.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/a-conservative-mp-has-been-criticised-after-accepting?utm_term=.ymgj7VPY#.ro7rGP9l

Surprise! Government says one thing and does exactly the opposite – this time rural pharmacies

“Ministers are planning to allow hundreds of rural chemists to close across the country despite repeated assurances to MPs this would not happen, The Telegraph can disclose.

In private letters to Theresa May, last August Philip Hammond and Jeremy Hunt warned that pharmacies would have to close because of the cut in a subsidy worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the hard-pressed pharmacies.

The Cabinet ministers’ warnings appear to be at odds with ministers’ repeated public claims in Parliament and in official documents that no closures are likely.

They also appear to confirm that Mrs May is concerned about the plans and had to seek reassurances from Mr Hammond, the Chancellor, and Mr Hunt, the Health secretary.

Campaigners said the letters amounted to a “smoking gun” which laid bare the Government’s indifference to saving rural pharmacies. …

… According to letters disclosed in a High Court challenge to the plans, and seen by The Telegraph, Mr Hammond and Mr Hunt warned that the cut will result in the closure of pharmacies.

Mr Hunt told Mrs May on August 2 the cut would mean that “500-900 pharmacies will close”, in a letter that was copied to Mr Hammond.

Mr Hunt said: “We cannot know exactly how individual pharmacies will be affected by the funding reductions and there is a risk that some pharmacies may close as a result of these changes, although this has never been our objective.”

Mr Hammond went further in a second letter on August 11, telling Mrs May he supported the subsidy cut to what he described as an “inefficient and over-subsidised market” to move chemists “away away from the traditional bricks-and-mortar business model”.

He told the Prime Minister: “Longer-term I would like the community pharmacy market to follow trends we have witnessed in other retail markets.

“This might include a shift away from the traditional bricks-and-mortar business model towards scaled-up, innovative supply solutions employing digital technology, where Government expenditure is minimised.”

The Government announced revised plans in October that increased the number of chemists that can access a special fund from 900 to 1,300, only half as many as the up to 900 that Mr Hunt expected to close.

Weeks later Pharmacies minister David Mowat told MPs three times that no closures were likely. He told MPs on October 17: “We do not believe that community pharmacies will necessarily close as a result of these cuts.”

The department’s own impact assessment was based on a scenario “a scenario where no pharmacy closes” as a result of the cut.

Labour’s shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said Mr Hunt should explain to MPs “why he was saying one thing to the Prime Minister while Mr Mowat was telling the House of Commons something different”.

He said: “Someone in Government needs to get a grip and clarify the future of these hundreds of community pharmacies, the staff who work in them, and the patients who depend upon their services.” …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/26/exclusive-philip-hammond-jeremy-hunt-tell-theresa-may-secret/

East Devon Alliance provides evidence on poor scrutiny at EDDC to Parliamentary Inquiry; EDDC provides woeful response ignoring major problems

Owl says: EDA submission – explosive and incisive; EDDC submission – spin and fluff.

Executive Summary of longer submission:

“Executive Summary

East Devon Alliance understands that encouraging economic development is a crucial task in local government. However, we are concerned that the increasing influence of unaccountable business interests on council decisions damages the health of local democracy, and can threaten the wider interests of local communities. The climate of unhealthy cynicism about politics, and a failure to engage in the democratic process, is reinforced whenever there is an apparent failure of scrutiny to make councils transparent and accountable.

Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) can too easily be rendered ineffectual by a dominant majority party in a cabinet-led-executive.

Government advice that members of a majority party should not chair O&S dcommittees must be made mandatory.

Chief Executives must not be able to have inappropriate influence on O&S committees.

Scrutiny Officers need to be independent of influence and interference from senior officers or members of cabinet.

The scrutiny role needs to be strengthened to be able to call witnesses. It should be a legal requirement for officers and members of Council and associated bodies to cooperate.

With increasing privatisation, commercial confidentiality must not be used to shield public expenditure from scrutiny.

Scrutiny should “reflect the voice and concerns of the public” by giving local people more say in what issues are chosen for scrutiny.

There is no scrutiny mechanism of the new tier of local government created by the unelected and self-selecting Local Enterprise Partnerships who now control over £2 billion a year in England. Proposals made in 2013 by the Centre for Public Scrutiny could form the basis for scrutiny of such devolved bodies.”

EDDC’s full submission to the Inquiry, by contrast, seems woefully inadequate, when all you can find to boast about is your Tree Task and Finish Forum:

“Written evidence submitted by the Scrutiny Committee of East Devon District Council [OSG 035]

The committee considered the terms of reference set down by the CLG inquiry and responded as follows:

The committee discussed the terms of reference for submission:
Whether scrutiny committees in local authorities in England are effective in holding decision makers to account:

o Meetings are publicised and open to public, with responses to Cabinet as needed. Some question as to whether these comments are heeded, not just ‘noted’; if only noted, there are no reasons fed back to the Scrutiny committee to further work on or refine recommendations.

The extent to which scrutiny committees operate with political impartiality and independence from executives
o The committee were comfortable that they are independent and impartial.
Whether scrutiny officers are independent of and separate from those being scrutinised

o Democratic Services have high integrity
How chairs and members are selected

o Independent Chairman. Politically balanced committee but little attention paid
to individual skills, knowledge and aptitude. Consideration could be given to further training to hone scrutiny skills.

Whether powers to summon witnesses are adequate

o Inadequate for external organisations, with a recent example of the repeated request to NHS Property Services to attend but still failed to appear to answer questions. Some reluctance by members and officers to attend.

The potential for local authority scrutiny to act as a voice for local service users
o This was already being undertaken by the committee, with recent examples
covering superfast broadband delivery, NHS revision of service delivery, and the Police 101 service.

How topics for scrutiny are selected
o Committee Members (and other councillors) invited to be involved. There
may be work that the Cabinet require more detailed analysis of and a request made to the Scrutiny committee to carry out that examination – to date this has not occurred. There was often a frustration in not being able to investigate topics because of limitations of the constitution or on issues where so much time had passed that it was not deemed viable to look into.

The support given to the scrutiny function by political leaders and senior officers, including the resources allocated (for example whether there is a designated officer team)
o Shared service of an officer within Democratic Services, no dedicated officer. No dedicated budget for scrutiny work, no designated lead officer. Officers are called to committee as best fits the topics for discussion.
What use is made of specialist external advisers
o To date mostly witnesses not advisers invited to attend. A suggestion was
made to approach the Local Government Association for a scrutiny advisor. Unclear where such specialist external advisors could be sourced from or what cost that would entail, particularly as the committee has no budget.

The effectiveness and importance of local authority scrutiny of external organisations o Mostly a lobbying role passed to MPs and others. Perhaps more relevant for scrutiny at a county level, but the committee does the best it can to communicate to external organisations.

The role of scrutiny in devolution deals and the scrutiny models used in combined authorities
o Need to have scrutiny involvement throughout the process, not after the deal has been completed

Examples where scrutiny has worked well and not so well
Effective internally on aspects such as the Tree Task and Finish Forum, which produced a number of recommendations taken on board to protect trees and support the business case for an additional staff member; and changes to how press releases are handled by staff; less effective on having an impact on proposed increases in beach hut charges. With limited powers, difficult to have an impact on other outside bodies.”

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communities-and-local-government-committee/overview-and-scrutiny-in-local-government/written/48581.html

Click to access 48556.pdf

“Councillors allow buildings to go ahead because they are dazzled by attractive computer-generated images created by developers, a heritage charity has warned.

The images look like photographs and are used to seduce planning committees into giving developments the green light, Marcus Binney of Save Britain’s Heritage said.

He said that in most cases, planning officers use developers’ own imagery with no input from opponents to the plans.

“They lavish large amounts of money on producing these images, and they’re very persuasive.

“People have got to be suspicious of images of people drinking espressos under nice awnings,” he said.

Previously planners often used hand-drawn artists’ impressions to show what the development would look like when completed, but CGI images are increasingly used.

Campaigners highlighted tricks such as using images which show the development in summer to make it look more attractive.

Mr Binney highlighted one image, of Paddington’s £775 million ‘Cube’ development, which received assent from Westminster City Council last week.
The computer-generated image shows sunlight streaming through the building – in areas which Mr Binney says will be not be transparent, because of lifts and a fire escape. Other promotional images show the building looking more opaque.

The development, designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano, is controversial. Campaigners say that the 72-metre high building is out of step with the rest of the area.

Westminster City Council’s cabinet member for planning and public realm, Cllr Daniel Astaire, said: “Council planning decisions are judged on each development’s individual merits, taking account of all the benefits a proposal brings to the city, its people and economy.

“We do not grant permission based on computer generated concepts.”
Pictures tend to show buildings in summer, opponents said.

Henrietta Billings, director of Save Britain’s Heritage, pointed to two other examples where CGI images had been used in promotional material for new buildings which were then criticised for being unattractive.

The Saffron Tower, in Croydon, and Lincoln Plaza, on the Isle of Dogs, east London, were both shortlisted for the Carbuncle Cup, an award for the UK’s ugliest building, last year.

Both had been promoted with attractive-looking CGI images.
Neutral images, known as “verified views”, are occasionally requested, especially where there is a public enquiry about the plans.

These are commissioned to an independent artist and represent an unbiased representation of what a proposed development will look like.

London-based architect Barbara Weiss said that her firm has begun using 3D imagery instead of static shots to make the images more representative.
“The 3D model is much more reliable. The problem with the CGI images is that they are taken from a fixed point, and if you step five metres away, you get a completely different view,” she said.”

http://newscdn.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.html?r=3&lan=en_GB&pid=14&id=Lda64f89bDg_uk&app_lan=&mcc=234&declared_lan=en_GB&pubaccount=ocms_0&referrer=200620&showall=1&mcc=234

Clinton Devon Estates offers to “fix broken housing market”

Owl says: the winning formula: promises, promises, promises, pseudo-eco words, pseudo-eco words, pseudo-eco-words spin, spin, spin, build, build, build. And when a “consultation” gives you the wrong answer – ignore it. Well, it does seem to be working so far

Even if you have to take half a “hospital hub” garden (the excuse there? Because it is “no longer being used for its original purpose”! Proof that hubs aren’t hospitals when it comes to land grabbing!

What happens when you have a multi-tasking absent MP

Relax, Mr Swire – it’s your pal not you – yet! But it does make us think …

MP George Osborne has refused to meet with a group of local constituents as he is too busy writing his book.

Wilmslow resident Stuart Regard recently contacted the Tatton MP to request a meeting to discuss the future of Britain after Brexit.

Mr Redgard, along with some other local residents is a member of the campaign group 38 Degrees, whose 300 members have drawn up a document entitled ‘The People Powered Vision for Brexit’.

He wrote to George Osborne on 20th February saying “We’ve voted on our main hopes and concerns for when we leave the EU casting over ten million votes between us. We would really welcome the opportunity to discuss this document with you and get your opinion on the views of hundreds of thousands of people.”

38 Degrees members across the UK have been meeting their MPs to discuss the ‘People Powered Vision for Brexit’. We understand Liam Fox, Jeremy Hunt and Philip Hammond are among the MPs who have read and discussed the document with their own constituents.

Mr Redgard continued “We are happy to meet with you at a regular surgery appointment, but would also welcome having a longer meeting with you if you’re able to accommodate this. Ideally there will be between four and five of us in attendance with an even split of Leave and Remain voters.”

Zoë Lord, from George Osborne’s office, responded on 7th March saying “Thank you for contacting Mr Osborne. Sadly, his diary is very committed as he is writing his book to a deadline. Unfortunately, we cannot arrange a time for you to meet just now.”

Mr Regard commented “I think this just represents his severe under performance in representing his constituents.” …”

http://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/15405/george-osborne-too-busy-writing-his-book-to-meet-with-constituents

and here is how he explains himself to his hapless constituents:

After all that you have read over the recent days about my new role as editor of the Evening Standard, I want to talk directly to you, my constituents.

It is the greatest honour to be your Member of Parliament, elected by you to represent our community here in Cheshire and take part in the national debate about the great issues Britain faces.

For sixteen years I have done that – thanks to your growing support at each election – and with your help we have achieved some major successes. We’ve stopped the closure of the A&E Department at Macclesfield District Hospital, not once but twice. We’ve got the Alderley Edge bypass built, after people had been trying for 70 years. We’ve improved the direct train services, got great new facilities for our academy schools, and brought new businesses and new jobs to the area. Throughout that time I’ve been able to help countless local people privately with their individual problems in the surgeries I’ve held and the efforts of my hard-working team in the office.

For almost all of those sixteen years, I have also held prominent positions in the public life of the country. For five years I was Shadow Chancellor. For these last six years I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a real privilege to hold one of the great offices of state but it is also one of the most demanding jobs in the country – working dawn to dusk, and on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Throughout that time I was there for you as your local MP.

Now I have left Downing Street I want to continue to take part in the debate about the future direction of our country. No longer being Chancellor gives me time to do that in other ways – yes, in the Chamber of the House of Commons; but also as the editor of a major newspaper, the Evening Standard. There is a long tradition of politics and journalism mixing. One of the greatest newspaper editors ever, CP Scott, combined editing the Manchester Guardian with being an MP. In our age, politicians from Iain Macleod and Richard Crossman to, of course, Boris Johnson have combined the role of editor and Member of Parliament.

Meanwhile the hard work in the constituency continues unaffected. Take this week alone. I’ve been helping the schools in Cheshire get a fairer deal out of the proposed new funding formula. I’ll be helping to officially open the new A556 link road – badly needed for decades, yet only delivered now because of my campaign and our collective hard work. I’ll be at the opening of another new business here, speaking at a fundraising dinner for a great local charity and holding my regular constituency surgery. It is all in a week’s work as your MP.

I will also be in Manchester to promote our efforts to build the Northern Powerhouse – a concept I launched two years ago and which it is one of my jobs now to promote through the new partnership we have created. Nothing has greater potential to improve the opportunities for the future in this area than that Northern Powerhouse

I believe this diversity of experience makes our Parliament stronger. I hope you agree and I look forward to continuing to hear what you have to say and to work with you on the problems we face and the great future we can all build.

Best wishes, George.

http://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/15407/osborne-issues-statement-to-constituents-following-his-appointment-as-evening-standard-editor

MPs and the stinky swamp some of them inhabit

“Is politics a service, a duty, a means to represent the needs and aspirations of the people, or is it a launchpad for lucrative jobs in the private sector? George Osborne was terribly amused in the House of Commons yesterday: all this fuss over a trifling issue like the corruption of British democracy! Can’t we see he’s doing us a favour, having to suffer the indignity of being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for multiple jobs rather than representing his constituents, all to make sure our “parliament is enhanced”, as he puts it? The sacrifice Osborne has made for all of us, having to be paid a juicy salary to further blur the distinction between media and political power, to make sure parliament is enriched by yet more MPs failing to devote themselves to the people who elected them.

There isn’t a sick bag big enough. It turns out he didn’t bother waiting for the advisory committee on business appointments to decide whether there is a conflict of interest first. Either they rule that there is an obvious conflict of interest in a serving senior Tory politician editing a daily newspaper, or the rules are a farce. Regardless, there are a number of lessons here. One is that some politicians think they are simply too brilliant to be reduced to the mere level of giving a voice to those they exist to serve, exploiting the prominence that comes with constituents selecting them as their representative and then making a packet out of it. Another was David Miliband, who made hundreds of thousands of pounds for speeches and corporate advisory roles when he returned to the backbenches: at least he had the dignity to eventually resign from his seat.

Then there is the revolving door of British politics. Public office gives you lots of marketable advantages: prominence, connections, knowledge of the inside workings of government. These can then be exploited by major corporations, wealthy individuals and media oligarchs to gain even more power over our corrupted democracy. Health ministers whose job it is to defend our sacred NHS end up working for private health firms who benefit from its privatisation; defence ministers end up working for arms firms bidding for government contracts. Our now foreign secretary was paid a quarter of a million pounds – described by Boris Johnson as “chicken feed” – for writing columns rather than, say, serving Londoners (although he did give up his regular column after becoming foreign secretary).”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/21/george-osborne-story-britain-ruled-never-ending-dinner-party

Election purdah: expect LOTS of good news and promises next week!

Purdah for the local county council elections (and possibly a General Election if rumours are to be believed) will begin on Monday 27 March 2017. Be aware NO council (not just the county council) can ignore purdah.

You can find a useful guide here:

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L15-91+Unpacking+Purdah_04.pdf/c80978b9-dc0b-4eee-9f81-49bd47afeb2d

From this guide:

“This means that:

• In general you (this means councils and councillors) should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters (an exception being situations covered by legislation or regulations directing publication of information for explanatory purposes).
• Particular care should be taken during the pre-election period to abide by the Act.
• Consider suspending the hosting of third party material or closing public forums if these are likely to breach the codes of practice.
• Do not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views on proposals in a way which identifies them with individual councillors or groups of councillors.
• Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published unless expressly authorised by statute.
• You are allowed to publish factual information which identifies the names, wards and parties of candidates at elections.

Although this new code supersedes the previous versions and may seem less specific, in practice your conduct should be similar to previous elections.
What this means in practice:

Publicity is deemed as “any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public.”

The first question to ask is ‘could a reasonable person conclude that you were spending public money to influence the outcome of the election?’ In other words it must pass the ‘is it reasonable’ test. When making your decision, you should consider the following:

You should not:
• produce publicity on matters which are politically controversial
• make references to individual politicians or groups in press releases
arrange proactive media or events involving candidates
• issue photographs which include candidates
• supply council photographs or other materials to councillors or political group staff unless you have verified that they will not be used for campaigning purposes
• continue hosting third party blogs or e-communications
• help with national political visits (as this would involve using public money to support a particular candidate or party). These should be organised by political parties with no cost or resource implications for the council.

You should also think carefully before you:
• Continue to run campaign material to support your own local campaigns. If the campaign is already running and is non-controversial (for example, on issues like recycling or foster care) and would be a waste of public money to cancel or postpone them, then continue. However, you should always think carefully if a campaign could be deemed likely to influence the outcome of the election and you should not use councillors in press releases and events in pre-election periods. In such cases you should stop or defer them. An example might be a campaign on an issue which has been subject of local political debate and/or disagreement.
• Launch any new consultations. Unless it is a statutory duty, don’t start any new consultations or publish report Findings from consultation exercises, which could be politically sensitive.

and

Council Notice Boards:

Councils are required to publicise details of the election and how to register to vote. Material relating to wider political issues should not be posted on of official notice boards which may be seen by members of the public. This includes publicity issued by, or on behalf of, a trade union.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exmouth seafront family business to be evicted for “regeneration”

“The owner of an Exmouth café has been left ‘heartbroken’ after being forced to close following plans to build a multi-million pound development on the seafront.

The family-run Harbour View Café and Chip Shop is set to disappear from the seafront after 40 years of trading, following East Devon District Council’s plans to build new development called Queen’s Drive Leisure Area. …

… Dawn said that they first found out about the development plans eight years ago.

She said: “The initial plan was that all of the independent businesses would be involved in the new development.

“I don’t know when that changed because it all went very quiet for a while, and then by 2014 we were given a formal notice and the council said we had to leave by September that year.

“At that point we had to decide whether we wanted to take it further and go to court or to agree to the end of the lease. And because we didn’t have the resources to take the fight all the way we had no other option but to agree to it.”

Since that point Dawn said that the council had given them an extension of their lease, but now that has ended and 2017 will be the last season. “I am grateful that the doors aren’t closed yet, but we did think that we would have at least another year of trading,” she added.

“The council have told us that we need to be out by the end of August, but I just wish we knew why. For the business to close in the peak of summer is the worst time for us as we will be so busy.

“We also have 19 members of staff that we will have to make redundant and we will still have to pay our mortgage somehow after August.

“Obviously we would love to keep Harbour View alive and we are currently looking for a new home. But it just scares me to know what the development is going to look like in three years’ time as I don’t know what I will be looking at.” …

… A spokeswoman for East Devon District Council said: “Change isn’t always easy to accept but Exmouth is a growing town with residents and visitors whose desires and expectations are changing as well. The council is committed to giving townspeople and visitors more and better attractions and facilities and that includes the Queen’s Drive site. Exmouth is the biggest town in Devon and it is starting to up its game.

“The café operators have known for two years that the Council is taking the site back and we have during that time supported them with a further season extension and free rent. We did this so that they have time to prepare to leave and plan for the future of their business.

“Mamhead Slipway, the Strand, the Premier Inn and M&S are all signs that Exmouth is embracing change and benefiting from new assets. A café at Orcombe Point could be next. Meanwhile Queen’s Drive investment is getting back on track.

“When the Council takes the Harbour View Cafe site back at the end of August we will also be preparing to move the road and car park and consultation will be under way on the water sports centre. For the Harbour View site in particular, once the council has it back, then we have the freedom to consider the best way forward and the best timing to bring a new and fresh eating place to what is one of the finest locations in the south west. …

http://www.devonlive.com/family-run-exmouth-caf-to-close-after-40-years-due-to-seafront-redevelopment-plans/story-30194144-detail/story.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy of EDDC Leader and the disgrace of whipping

From the blog of Claire Wright.

The moral of this story: believe nothing a Tory councillor says, draw your views from what they do and vote Independent if you want the best for your town or village!

“Honiton councillor attempts to defend his silence over hospital bed closures

Yesterday’s front page of the Ottery/Honiton View From Series caught my eye – http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/Launch.aspx?PBID=03a901df-0b77-4e35-90e6-93ca8d117094

It features Honiton Conservative Devon County Councillor (and EDDC leader) Paul Diviani attempting to defend his silence over plans to close all Honiton Hospital’s beds.

A town campaign group – Save Hospital Services Honiton – has asked a series of questions of him, including why he voted down two of my proposals at health scrutiny, which would have helped Honiton Hospital’s case.

Unable to deny he hasn’t attended a single meeting in the town about the bed closures, spoken out against them, or voted down my two proposals at health scrutiny in November and January, Cllr Diviani cites a whipped vote at Devon County Council full council meeting, where he voted in favour of two motions that opposed health cuts, in his defence.

But this admission simply raises more questions. Why, if Cllr Diviani was concerned enough to vote in favour of a motion in December, objecting to health service cuts, did he not also vote consistently at the November and January health scrutiny meetings?

Cllr Diviani claims the committee has no power to dictate to the NHS. Of course, we do not have the power to order things to be done, but the committee is the only legal check on health services in Devon and it definitely does have the power to make recommendations which the NHS would be unwise to ignore.

Finally, Cllr Diviani says he “fully supports” the Devon County Council budget which provides more money for social care.

What he doesn’t say is that this budget has been massively cut every year for seven years due to government austerity measures and if you read the smallprint of the January joint budget scrutiny papers any increase in funding is a drop in the ocean and fewer people will be entitled to receive social care. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

Government response to petition – “Give communities back the right to decide where houses are built.”.

OWL SAYS: if you believe this, you will believe anything. Have we been consulted about where our Local Enterprise Partnership is going to build extra houses? No. What say do we have about extra houses for Greater Exeter? Almost none. Do (favoured) developers get just about anything and everything they ask for in East Devon? Yes, they do.

Truly we live in a parallel universe to the government!


“Local communities are not forced to accept large housing developments. Communities are consulted throughout the Local Plan process and on individual planning applications.

Read the response in full

The National Planning Policy Framework strongly encourages all local planning authorities to get up-to-date Local Plans in place as soon as possible, in consultation with the local community. Up-to-date Local Plans ensure that communities get the right development, in the right place, at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Through the White Paper we are ensuring that every part of the country produces, maintains and implements an up-to-date plan, yet with the flexibility for local areas to decide how to plan in a way that best meets their needs.

A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.

The Framework recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. That is why our proposals are focussed on development in built up areas.
We are also absolutely clear that Green Belt must be protected and that there are other areas that local authorities must pursue first, such as brownfield land and taking steps to increase density on urban sites. The Government is committed to maximising the use of brownfield land and has already embarked on an ambitious programme to bring brownfield land back into use.

We believe that developers should mitigate the impacts of development. This is vital to make it acceptable to the local community and to addresses the cumulative impact of development in an area. Both the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements can be used by local planning authorities to help fund supporting infrastructure and address the cumulative demand that development places on infrastructure. Through the White Paper, the Government announced that it will examine the options for reforming the existing system of developer contributions to see how this can be simplified, with further announcements at Autumn Budget 2017.

The £2.3billion Housing Infrastructure Fund will deliver up to 100,000 new homes by putting in the right infrastructure, in the right place, at the right time. We expect the fund to be able to deliver a variety of types of infrastructure necessary to unlock housing growth in high demand areas.

There is nothing automatic about grants of planning permission where there is not yet an up-to-date Local Plan. It is still up to local decision-makers to interpret and apply national policy to local circumstances, alongside the views of the local community. Applications should not be approved if the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or if specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

Communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications and in response to most appeals by the applicant against a local authority decision. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.

We therefore do not believe a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities is necessary. It is considered that communities already have plenty of opportunity to have their say on local planning issues, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process.

Department for Communities and Local Government”

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/177333

Why employ consultants?

After the Oscars fiasco, laid firmly at the door of management consultants PriceWaterhouseCooper, the Guardian has this to say:

“These big companies and the legions of highly paid experts are supposed to be delivering measurable results, yet it seems most of what they touch runs worse than before.

So it’s worth asking what it is they are actually selling that is worth so much.

The first, obvious answer is plausible deniability. If a management wants to slash its workforce then it is obviously better that the bad news be delivered by outsiders who can be blamed later.

This evasion of responsibility may well be worth a great deal to the managers concerned, if not to the other stakeholders of the enterprise.

This motive overlaps or shades into another, more interesting one. The one thing that consultancies and even accountants are meant to deliver is objectivity – and from that springs authority, which is what they’re really selling.

Someone who comes along with an air of confident command will always find followers even if they know nothing about their subject, providing the followers are more painfully confident of their own ignorance.

The vocational education of the English ruling classes taught the art of bluffing at the speed of thought – and though this skill is indispensable at the bar, and still more in the House of Commons, unfortunately it’s not the best way to make really important decisions, as the career of David Cameron so catastrophically demonstrates. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/27/the-guardian-view-on-management-consultants-the-trick-is-confidence

Man who ran for Police and Crime Commissioner convicted of electoral fraud

From the blog of Dr Mark Pack – who is assiduously following the cases of electoral fraud from the 2015 elections:

“Last year I covered the odd case of a man facing trial on electoral fraud charges who managed to get the trial delayed… because he was running for Police and Crime Commissioner.

When I published that earlier post, he commented on this site, saying, “with complaints about the investigating Policeman, the behaviour of the Judge, the incompetence of the Court, and the fact that the CPS have only circumstantial evidence, it is most unlikely that this case will ever go to trial”.

Well, the trial has now happened and Steve Uncles of the English Democrats found guilty:

“A disgraced far-right activist is facing jail for cheating the election system by submitting fraudulent nomination forms.

English Democrats regional leader Steven Uncles dreamt up fictitious names such as Anna Cleves and Rachelle Stevens – referred to by a judge as “the lady from S Club 7”.

The 52-year-old local politician, who has since resigned but remained an official in high office, was convicted of seven charges of using a false instrument with intent and two of causing or permitting a false statement to be included in a nomination form…

The case faced several delays caused by Uncles applying for adjournments – one being because he ran for the post of Police Commissioner in May last year.

He failed to appear on the first day of his trial on February 8 and was arrested on a warrant outside the court when he turned up the next day. He has denied breaching his bail. [Kent Online]

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148525/steve-uncles-english-democrats/

New business rates 19% higher for NHS hospitals, 9.6% higher for private hospitals

“People are saying local authorities shouldn’t have to develop local funding solutions to the meeting the rising costs of adult social care. This article reveals another challenging irony in the context of the devolution of financial responsibility. Local authorities are going to become increasingly dependent on business rates and yet by so doing they will potentially, as an unintended consequence, drive up the costs of healthcare in their localities.

In a world where we have been able to do so many technically brilliant things we must be capable of finding a better way forward than the chaos, which is beginning to embed itself at the heart of the way we pay for our services. There is a strong argument to suggest this policy, when allied to ongoing cuts to central Government funding for local authorities involves taking money out of the NHS to fill the gap left by Government cuts. This article tells us:

The government is under growing pressure to stop a sharp increase in business rates for hospitals that threatens to increase the strain on the NHS.

Changes to the business rates system mean that the 1,249 NHS hospitals liable for the property tax will see their bills increasing by £322m, or 21%, over the next five years from April.

However, a growing number of politicians are calling for the government to reconsider the tax hike for hospitals, including making them eligible for the same 80% discount that charities enjoy.

Some private healthcare providers, such as Nuffield Health, already enjoy an 80% discount because they are registered as charities. Furthermore, the business rates that the 581 private hospitals do pay will not increase as much as it will for hospitals.

The rateable value of private hospitals has increased by 9.6% in the last revaluation while NHS hospitals have seen a 19.8% rise, according to research by the property consultant CVS.

The cross-party group of politicians who have already expressed concern about the tax rise for hospitals include Steve McCabe, Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, Royston Smith, Conservative MP for Southampton Itchen, and Annie Wells, Conservative and Unionist MSP for Glasgow.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/15/government-urged-stop-tax-hikes-nhs-hospitals-business-rates

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

“Candy Udwin, from Camden Keep NHS Public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limited number of meetings in East Devon on latest NHS cuts

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

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

The high priority acute services being reviewed are:

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

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

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

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

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

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