Read the rest of the sleazy story and marvel at the fact that the City of Westminster’s planning committee appears to have just FOUR members …
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/20/robert-davis-the-councillor-meets-the-property-mogul
Category Archives: Transparency
Greendale Business Centre: FWS Carter and Sons application fails at the High Court
PRESS RELEASE:
“After 3 years challenging the planning system, Greendale Business Park owners are required to return an area back to Agricultural use.
It may have taken 3 years but finally the Planning Department at East Devon District Council (EDDC) has succeeded in winning a long running planning and legal challenge.
It was the 8th Feb 2015 when earth moving and general building works were first reported to EDDC Enforcement Officers by neighbours of Greendale Business Park. This was on a 3.5Ha site, east of the existing permitted development area at the Business Park near the village of Woodbury Salterton.
Following investigation, the Local Planning Authority (EDDC) served an Enforcement Notice to the owners FWS Carter and Sons, but they chose to ignore the notice and carried on developing the site at “their own risk”.
A planning application was submitted nine months later (06/11/2015 15/2592/MOUT) but the development was considered to lie outside the agreed development area for Greendale Business Park and it was refused by EDDC. A second attempt was made with a similar proposal split into 2 separate planning applications the following December but this was also refused (06/12/2016 16/2597/FUL and 16/2598/MFUL).
The Local Planning Authority then issued the owners with an Enforcement Notice, requesting the removal of the industrial concrete hardstanding, fences, buildings and the return of the land to agricultural use. The company then appealed to the Government’s Planning Inspectorate in March 2017 for the decision to be revoked.
on Dec 7th, 2017 the Inspector found in favour of the Local Authority and upheld their enforcement decision, but within days the Company lodged an appeal with the High Court. Last week 08/02/2018 the Judge ruled that there was no case to answer and therefore the decision by the Local Authority was upheld and costs of £3998 was set against the applicants, FWS Carter and Sons.
The Company now has 6 months to remove all industrial activity and return the land to agricultural use. This work will be monitored very closely
Another section of the Business Park (an area approximately 1Ha) south of the Greendale Business Park and just off Hogsbrook Lane, has also been developed without planning consent. The owners FWS Carter and Sons claimed in Oct 2017 that this land has been in “unlawful” industrial use for more than 10 years and they applied for a little-known planning regulation loophole known as a “Certificate of Lawfulness ” (17/2441/CPE) to enable the area to continue to be used without requiring further planning approval.
However, the Local Planning Authority followed Legal Advice and concluded that the land had not been used “unlawfully” for 10 years because there was lawful permitted development with a gas pipeline contractor occupying the site for 3 years. Because of this, the Certificate of Lawfulness was refused and it is expected that an Enforcement Notice will be served on the Company for this breach of planning shortly.
Councillor Geoff Jung, EDDC Ward Councillor for Raleigh Ward which includes Greendale Business Park says, “It is a great shame that the Company started to develop this area prior to any planning permission being in place. The efforts and costs incurred by the company in developing the site, including the cost of architects, planning consultants, barristers, solicitors, court costs, contractors’ costs and everyone’s time has all been wasted.”
“Add to that the considerable costs to the local authorities` planning, enforcement and legal teams in endeavouring to provide a sound and fair case.”
“It’s quite clear the Planning System has moved on enormously in the last 15 years, with much more openness and clarity, mainly down to modern technology. Planning applications and official documents are now open to scrutiny at the touch of a button and can be viewed without leaving your house.”
“Previously documents were available only at District and Town Halls, for interested parties to view but now the internet and Local Authority Planning Portals provide everyone with a better understanding of the planning regulations and legal issues involved.”
“I look forward to the day when all developers will follow the normal planning procedures and not proceed in such a cavalier way. This may have been the way it was done in the past but its proving much more difficult now.”
“I would like to thank the many local people who have frequently written to the Planning Authority to comment whenever it was required, as well as the Planning and Legal Team at East Devon District Council who ensured that the Planning Regulations were correctly upheld”
So, how is EDDC’s office relocation going? Update and some odd figures
With the new barn-like EDDC HQ taking shape in Honiton, how is the project going? How much has it cost so far? What is the current projected cost?
Hard to say. Owl searched for news of the “Office Relocation Project Executive Group” and was directed to its website:
where readers are told to consult the project archive:
Alas, the last document posted there was on 20 February 2013 (in response to the requirement of the Information Tribunal which EDDC lost) and Owl’s attempt to find anything more up-to-date (including current costings and financing arrangements) has so far failed.
Perhaps an EDDC councillor or officer can let Owl know where the latest information is – and who is in charge of the project these days?
Well, officers and councillors must read this blog! I have been pointed to ANOTHER website (thanks):
and here is the latest update:
Archive 8 states on 18 October 2017:
“Progress – going well. Costs remain within budget allowances. Spend to date is £3.745,000 leaving a balance of £6,840,148m.”
and on 15 November 2017:
“Progress – going well. Costs remain within budget allowances. Spend
to date is £1.403m leaving a balance of £6.482m with a contingency of £245,000. Completion date is scheduled for 15 October 2018 with a relocation date of 21 December.”
Click to access joint-project-exec-and-officer-wkg-group-minutes-151117.pdf
Now – Can anyone explain the discrepancy? £3,745,000 spent to date in October 2017 and £1,403,000 to date a month later?
“Audit committee calls for review of threshold for misconduct in public office offences”
Again, plenty Owl could might add here!
“The chair of a local authority’s audit and risk assurance committee has written to the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, to express concern at the “extremely high threshold” for consideration of Misconduct in Public Office offences.
The letter sent by Cllr Liam Preece of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough came after the local authority had referred certain allegations about some elected members to the police.
However, the police – following a review of the evidence held by the council – reached a determination that there was insufficient evidence to meet the threshold for recording a crime.
Cllr Preece said that the audit and risk assurance committee had accepted the police’s decision, “but were ultimately concerned that there is an extremely high threshold for consideration of Misconduct in Public Office offences which in turn could lead to a lack of public confidence in the process”.
He added in the letter, which can be viewed here, that the committee hoped that the relevant guidance issued to police forces in relation to the threshold criteria for such offences could be reviewed.
“The Committee feel that in cases of multiple serious breaches of the code of conduct, the police should feel more justified to bring charges against elected members to restore and maintain public confidence,” Cllr Preece told the DPP.”
“Westminster councillor received gifts and hospitality 514 times in three years”
Surely not the only one. So many councillors in Devon accept such hospitality …..particularly at sporting events …..
Full list of this councillor’s freebies here:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/19/full-list-of-westminster-councillor-robert-daviss-514-freebies
“Westminster city council’s deputy leader has emerged as a contender for the title of the most schmoozed politician in Britain, receiving entertainment, meals and gifts more than 500 times in the last three years.
From tickets to the hottest West End shows to exclusive dinners in London’s finest restaurants and trips to the south of France, the official declarations reveal an extraordinary lifestyle that included one day in Mallorca, when Robert Davis managed two lunches, the first at the home of Andrew Lloyd Webber and the second at the home of the Earl of Chichester.
Davis, the Conservative deputy leader of the central London borough and until last year the chairman of its powerful planning committee, was entertained by and received gifts from property industry figures at least 150 times since the start of 2015 – a rate of almost once a week.
His entertainment was paid for by some of the country’s wealthiest property developers including Gerald Ronson, Sir Stuart Lipton and Sir George Iacobescu, the chief executive of Canary Wharf Group.
The Cambridge-educated solicitor was entertained or received gifts on 514 occasions since the start of 2015, suggesting he received benefits worth at least £13,000 although then overall total is likely to be several times higher.
Councillors must declare gifts and hospitality worth £25 or more, but some of the hospitality would have been worth much more. For example, property developers twice flew Davis to the south of France and put him up for four-day stays.
He was also gifted a ticket to the musical Hamilton by the impresario Cameron Mackintosh, which can cost as much as £250. Steaks at the M steakhouse, where he dined 20 times at others’ expense cost up to £100 each. Other property figures treated him to lunch at exclusive restaurants including Sexy Fish, Scott’s, the Colony Grill Room, the Ritz and the Ivy.
Davis was entertained 15 times at the expense of the Westminster Property Association, which represents major developers, including an expenses-paid trip to the south of France and dinners at the Grosvenor House and Goring Hotels in London.
Labour said the extent of Davis’s register of interests was evidence of a “broken culture at Westminster council” and said there was a “clear perception that senior Conservative councillors have a very close relationships with developers”. It has accused the council of letting developers get away with building far fewer “affordable” homes than required under Westminster’s planning policy.
Between 2013 and 2016 only 12% of the new homes built in Westminster were classed as “affordable” while the target was 35%. Davis chaired the council’s planning committee, which approves deals with developers over how much affordable housing they must build as part of private developments, between 2000 and January 2017. …
… a spokesman for Westminster city council hit back saying: “The idea that any councillor has been ‘bought’ by the property lobby is demonstrably untrue.”
“Westminster is a target for investment for UK and national developers, so it is hardly surprising that the chair of planning for Westminster city council – the largest planning authority in the UK – undertakes a large number of meetings,” he said. “Where hospitality is offered, these meetings are all declared in the register of interests and have absolutely no sway on planning decisions.”
Davis added: “As planning chairman it was an important part of my job to meet groups ranging from developers to residents, property agents, heritage associations, arts groups and trade organisations. These meetings were all properly declared and open to anyone to examine. Their sole purpose was to ensure and encourage the right kind of development in Westminster and ensure that anything put before the council was going to benefit the city as a whole.”
The records show Davis also dined with several planning consultancy companies whose job it is to help their clients secure planning consent. When he was chairman of the planning committee he was given breakfast at the Carlton Club in St James by the consultancy Thorncliffe which boasts on its website: “We get clients planning committee approval.”
There is no suggestion that Davis breached any rules.
Davis’s declared entertainment dwarves that of the leaders of his own council and the neighbouring Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The current leader of Westminster, Nickie Aiken, has registered only nine instances of gifts or hospitality for the first half of 2017. Nick Paget-Brown, the leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea until the Grenfell tower disaster, recorded 43 instances since the start of 2015.
Hug said the extent of the entertainment Davis received during some periods was “ludicrous”.
On one day, while in Mallorca during August 2015, he registered two lunches: the first at the home of Madeleine Lloyd Webber, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s third wife, and the second at the home of the Earl of Chichester.
The property developers that entertained or gave gifts to Davis include: the Crown Estate (13 times), Clivedale Properties, Capco, Irvine Sellar, Derwent London, Berkeley Homes, British Land, Land Securities, Grosvenor Estates, Soho Estates, Dukelease. Architects included Zaha Hadid, Make, Terry Farrell, Michael Squire and John McAslan.
There is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of Davis or any other named individual.
Davis was also gifted seats at 10 theatre shows at the expense of the impresario Cameron Mackintosh and a further 51 performances at venues including the Royal Opera House and the Regent’s Park open air theatre. In 2016 he was entertained at the expense of Harvey Weinstein at the after-party for the Bafta awards.
Since January he has been in charge of council policy on theatres and major public realm schemes.
Labour said that if elected to run Westminster council in May’s elections its councillors will not accept hospitality from individual developers or their agents.”
Auditers – what are the good for? Papering over cracks?
“Carillion’s investors fled the failing company as it headed for disaster, according to MPs.
The construction firm’s annual reports were a worthless guide to its financial health and raise major questions about corporate governance, the MPs say.
The comments come in a joint report published on Monday by the Work and Pensions and Business committees.
Carillion’s former auditor, KPMG, will be questioned by MPs on Thursday.
Britain’s second largest construction company collapsed last month, with the loss of almost 1,000 jobs. There were also job cuts and widespread disruption among sub-contractors. …
… Frank Field, chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, said there was a “disconnect” between what Carillion directors told MPs and the information from shareholders.
“On one hand, the Carillion directors told us all was sunny” until a major contract in Qatar went wrong.
“On the other hand, investors were fleeing for the hills, and it appears those who looked closest ran fastest,” Mr Field said.
It has emerged that one leading investor – Kiltearn Partners – considered suing Carillion. …
Rachel Reeves, who chairs the Business Committee, said: “Investors spotted that Carillion was heading for disaster and fled.
“The company had unsustainably high levels of debt, weak cash-generation and was saddled with a widening pensions Rachel Reeves, who chairs the Business Committee, said: “Investors spotted that Carillion was heading for disaster and fled.
“The company had unsustainably high levels of debt, weak cash-generation and was saddled with a widening pensions deficit.
“Carillion’s annual reports were worthless as a guide to the true financial health of the company.”
She said the fact that it was impossible to get a true sense of Carillion’s financial health “raises serious” corporate governance issues.
“KMPG will have to explain why they signed-off on accounts which appeared to bear so little relation to reality,” Ms Reeves said. …
“Further defects found at housing [new-build apartments] with Grenfell-style cladding”
“More than a dozen fire safety concerns have been uncovered in a new housing complex covered in Grenfell-style flammable cladding, built by one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, Galliard Homes.
In the weeks after the Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 71 lives, defective fire doors, missing fire-stopping, dangerous fire escapes and holes in plasterboard meant to stop the spread of flames and smoke were identified by fire officials at New Capital Quay in Greenwich, London, which is home to about 2,000 people and opened in 2013.
The Guardian has learned that another deficiency notice from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) was issued on 25 January in relation to all 11 blocks in the complex.
It identified 16 fire safety issues, including a lack of arrangements to evacuate vulnerable and elderly residents, an ineffective maintenance regime, a broken firefighting lift and a broken fire hydrant outside one of the blocks.
It also found that “the procedures to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons are inadequate”, raising residents’ fears about being trapped in the event of a fire.
Ruth Montlake, 85, who lives on the seventh floor of one of the blocks, said: “The fire situation is very worrying. I am hard of hearing; how will I know to evacuate?”
Simone Joseph, 35, a fashion buyer and mother of a seven-year-old boy, said there had been three fires in her block in the time she had lived there.
“To know that seven months down the line we are living in this property with this cladding is upsetting,” said Joseph, who rents from Hyde Housing, the head leaseholder of two of the blocks. “People have been cutting corners for so many years and are putting people’s lives at risk and they have to be held accountable.”
With more than 1,000 homes, New Capital Quay is believed to be one of the biggest single private housing developments in the country discovered to have flammable cladding in the wake of Grenfell. Galliard sold two-bedroom apartments for £700,000.
A fire warden patrol was put in place when the cladding was discovered last summer, but residents are concerned that it is still in place seven months after the west London disaster.
“We simply do not feel safe living in buildings with defective cladding that could rapidly go up in flames while we are sleeping,” one woman told the local council in an email exchange.
Galliard said some of the defects identified in July had been addressed and there had been no issue with missing fire-stopping material, just an error during the inspection.
It said the building was different to Grenfell: “Totally unlike Grenfell, NCQ was built and still has full and proper fire precautions with fire doors, fire-stopping, fire alarms, smoke-extract systems and no gas in apartments. The block at NCQ which has the most cladding has a full sprinkler system throughout.”
It also said that three of the 16 issues raised by fire authorities in its latest report were “not true” and questioned two further issues.
Asked whether residents were safe, Galliard said LFEPA was the leading expert. “They have the statutory power to issue notices to evacuate the homes. They have to date decided not to do so,” it said.
While residents fear their lives are at risk while the cladding remains, they are also concerned they will be asked to pay the estimated £20m-£40m bill – between £20,000 and £40,000 a flat – to make it safe. In addition, they face a £1.25m bill for round-the-clock fire patrols.
But they are particularly concerned about how difficult it is to get information and said they were forced to use a freedom of information request to uncover the fire safety notices from the London Fire Brigade (LFB).
Galliard, which is facing a bill of up to £40m, is planning to sue the warranty and insurance provider, National House Building Council. NHBC has indicated it will defend the claim.
Meanwhile, 30 fire marshals are patrolling the 11 buildings 24 hours a day at an estimated cost of £25,000 a week. But residents are concerned that wardens are not the solution.
Annabel Parsons, 54, a business psychologist who lives in the complex, said one marshal had been spotted asleep and another had brought a blanket with him. Before they were equipped with hand-held klaxons, one warden said their plan to raise the alarm in the event of a fire involved throwing stones at windows, residents claimed. Galliard said that without a date, time, name and other details of the fire marshal, it was an “impossible allegation to investigate”.
Hyde Housing, which has interests in six of the blocks as well as being head leaseholder in two, said the situation was “very distressing” for residents.
“We urge all those bodies involved in resolving this matter to do so speedily,” said Brent O’Halloran, director of asset management at Hyde.
A recent tribunal regarding a building in Croydon was told that official guidance was that fire wardens were the “least-efficient, most resource-intensive” solution of three recommended by LFB.”
“Financial Peer Review Northamptonshire County Council”
Northamptonshire County Council is effectively bankrupt. This is a peer review report if their financial situation last year. Some worrying similarities!
Some lessons for officers and councillors.
For example:
“4.3.8 There is a lack of sufficient challenge among officers and from members. There is a considerable amount of trust in plans that are presented without evidence that those plans have been challenged. Some Portfolio holders readily accept the information they are given without systematic and robust challenge. There is a tendency for cabinet members to trust that the relevant individual portfolio holder has challenged proposals.
4.3.9 Decisions taken by the Cabinet need greater transparency. Council members and scrutiny chairs need access to more information. There was a desire expressed from some cabinet members for greater discussion and challenge across portfolios. However, where challenge has been provided, for example from the Audit Committee, that has not been welcomed.”
Swire: is this ethical?
This is Swire’s current declaration of interests:
“From 9 November 2016, Adviser to KIS France, a manufacturer of photo booths and mini labs. Address: 7 Rue Jean Pierre Timbaud, 38130 Echirolles, France. I expect to be paid £3,000 every month until further notice. Hours: 8 hrs per month. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment. (Registered 16 November 2016)
From 15 November 2016, Deputy Chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. Address: Marlborough House, Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HX. I expect to be paid £2,000 every month until further notice. Hours: 10 hrs per month. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment. (Registered 16 November 2016)
16 November 2017, received £25,000 for acting as adviser to Apiro Real Estate Fund 1 Limited Partnership, 1 Connaught House, Mount Row, London SW1K 3RA. Hours: 10 hrs. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment. (Registered 22 November 2017)
From 18 June 2017, non-executive director of ATG Airports, Newton Road, Lowton St Mary’s, Warrington WA3 2AP:
24 November 2017, received £10,086.72. Hours: 15 hrs. (Registered 05 December 2017)”
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/180205/swire_hugo.htm
Now read the article below that he penned for Conservative Home – about why people should not be allowed to take selfies for passports but should use photo booths. He says in the article that he ” once chaired” a photo booth company does not say explicitly that it still employs him at a monthly salary of £3,000 for up to 8 hours work per month.
Is this ethical? Is it a conflict of interest? Should the website provide a disclaimer to make his relationship with the company clear?
The article:
“A few weeks ago a Belgian court convicted 14 people of falsifying ID documents, some of which were sold to Islamist militants involved in the terror attacks on Paris and Brussels.
For many of my generation fake IDs were about getting into pubs and clubs, or buying a pint and a packet of cigarettes a couple of years before we were supposed to. For this generation, as the families of those slain in Paris, Brussels and countless other attacks will testify, the end results of fake IDs can now be unimaginably awful.
As a former Minister for Northern Ireland and more recently Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I am all too aware of the threats we face at our borders. As a father of two teenagers I am also more than aware that we live in the “selfie” age. You only have to step outside the gates of Parliament to see hundreds of tourists with selfie sticks smiling in front of Big Ben. When it comes to passport and other ID documents, people are increasingly demanding a similar quick DIY approach.
The Passport Office has been testing the idea of selfie photos since April 2016 in line with the Government’s drive to get more business online. The idea was unsurprisingly popular as photos are free, quick and easy to take. Unfortunately it also exposes the passport process to unnecessary risks and it is often difficult for people to capture an acceptable image. Such selfies can easily be manipulated, for vanity or for more sinister criminal purposes, creating convincing false IDs.
Having already allowed the use of self-taken photos for their Passport card, the Irish Passport Office have identified the need and importance to provide a fully secure but easily accessible digital photo upload system. The Photo-Me photobooth has been approved for this process.
France has already rolled out that system. Here in the UK we are trialling a similar system, but it will not be operational until next year at the earliest.
In Ireland the Department for Foreign Affairs is working with Photo-Me International, a company I once chaired and one of the many providers of photobooths in the UK and across Europe. Following the Brexit vote one of the most important areas in need of resolution is the preserving of the Common Travel Area between the UK and Republic of Ireland, a vital aspect of which is commonality in terms of documentation. The DFA is working on an innovative scheme which will mean 90 per cent of the population are located within 10km of a photobooth.
Pictures taken in these booths will possess a number of key security features which smart phones do not. It will be impossible for the photo to have been edited in any way as the encrypted image is always held on secure servers. The images submitted have the highest acceptance level in meeting International Civil Aviation Organization standards which saves a considerable amount of time and money as the need for manual checks is greatly reduced. The images are automatically deleted six months after being taken providing passport providers with 100 per cent assurance the maximum six month old photo regulation is complied with. In addition, the technology present in the photobooths is already fully scalable for future biometric security regulations such as 3D, Iris reading, signature, fingerprint and facial recognition. This service will also be available in selected booths across the UK but for Irish citizens only. Importantly there is also no cost to the Government.
We already know that the number of forged passports seized at our borders is on the rise, with more than 1,000 confiscated a year. Britain’s exit from the EU gives us a golden opportunity to redesign and modernise our passports. It might be nice and convenient if we could upload selfies for our passport pictures. However, we live in an incredibly dangerous world. We owe it to our citizens to do everything we can to make sure our passport system is as secure as possible to help combat ID fraud and its sometimes deadly results.”
“Fears of cover-up as government departments wipe staff mail boxes”
One imagines this is replicated at all levels …
“A Sunday Telegraph investigation found that the vast majority of departments are automatically deleting staff mail boxes within three months of their departure – prompting concern that the system is a recipe for cover-ups.
… A former government adviser on freedom of information said “It is hard to resist the thought that there is a happy coincidence between the approach to record management and getting rid of material that may contain unwanted answers about how particular decisions were reached – answers a department may prefer were unavailable if an FOI came in …”
Source: Sunday Telegraph
“Sleaze watchdog to look at tighter curbs for councillors”
” … The inquiry comes after a government adviser warned that the Coalition “threw out the baby with the bathwater” when it abolished the controversial Standards Board for England that enforced a nationwide code of conduct for councillors.
Dr Jane Martin, the member of the Committee leading the inquiry says she “regularly receives correspondence” from the public expressing concern about councillors’ behaviour. …
There are concerns that council standards committees can only “censure” politicians, rather than suspend them in the most serious cases. …”
Source: Sunday Telegraph
Owl says: once again, too little too late:
See and hear our own disgraced Tory ex-councillor Graham Brown (ex-chief of the equally disgraced council-run East Devon Business Forum) explaining that “if I can’t get planning, nobody will” but that he won’t work for peanuts:
and the chapter on East Devon in Anna Minton’s Spinwatch report “Scaring the living daylights out of people – the local lobby and the failure of democracy”:
https://www.annaminton.com/single-post/2016/03/21/Scaring-The-Living-Daylights-Out-Of-People
Privatised profit, public loss – a masterclass
Virgin – running vast parts of our NHS; Stagecoach – a virtual monopoly on bus services in East Devon and Greater Exeter.
“For the third time in a decade, an East coast rail franchise operator has shown little of the financial prudence once associated with the great cities linked by its trains from London to Yorkshire and Scotland. Following the failures of GNER in 2007 and National Express in 2009, Virgin Trains East Coast has run out of steam, with the government declaring a financial covenant breached and the contract set to fail in months.
The latest incumbent has, like its predecessors, bid too much to run a lucrative line whose potential revenues have fallen short, at a time when economic uncertainty has gnawed away at ticket sales.
But exactly why Stagecoach, the 90% lead partner to Virgin’s 10% stake in the current franchise, promised £3.3bn to run the line, and how that contract is now resolved, remain key questions – amplified by East Coast’s unique place in the blazing political row over how the UK rail network is run.
In 2013, when bidding started, East Coast was nationalised, run by Directly Operated Railways (DOR), a government-owned firm returning around £200m a year in premium payments to the Treasury.
The previous year, the parallel line north, the West Coast intercity service from London to Glasgow run by Virgin with Stagecoach since privatisation, had been the subject of a bidding competition gone bad. The award of the franchise to First Group was overturned on legal challenge after Virgin argued that its rivals had won with a colossal but unsustainable bid.
Pointing at the lessons of the past, failed East Coast franchises, the Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson railed: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. When will the Department for Transport learn?”
Not soon enough. A government-commissioned inquest concluded that franchising remained the best model. A queue of rail contracts were almost up, not least the Virgin-run West Coast. But the reletting of East Coast to the private sector was prioritised ahead of a 2015 election that was expected to see a hung parliament, potentially keeping the line in public hands.
The dust had hardly settled when the DfT invited bids with a vision that would lead to Branson and Stagecoach promising undeliverable riches of their own.
Investment was coming to the East Coast line, including track and power upgrades, critically bringing a new fleet of InterCity Express IEP trains, with more than half of a £5.7bn government order earmarked for the line. What was promised, pledged or inferred – and how relevant it is to the collapse of VTEC’s contract – is contested.
Stagecoach claim upgrades were promised and not delivered that materially impacted its franchise; a review by Peter Hendy axed or deferred engineering works around the country after the infrastructure body Network Rail blew its budget on the electrification of the Great Western mainline.
However, Network Rail is clear it has already done the work necessary to bring in new trains and a timetable that would have turbocharged passenger numbers – and Stagecoach’s premium payments – after 2019. Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, has also said that no cancelled upgrades have affected the franchise to date.
What was wrong, it appears, was Branson’s conviction that a new livery and “people hungrily trying to make a real difference” could propel passenger numbers upwards from when Virgin took over. Instead, fares went up and the outlook went down.
They got their forecasts wrong, Stagecoach’s chief executive, Martin Griffiths, admitted this week. But, he added, the DfT “decided we offered a high quality and realistic bid … indeed, I was personally told at the time that it was the highest quality bid they had ever seen”.
In March 2016, a year after taking over, Branson and Stagecoach’s chair, Brian Souter, rode into King’s Cross on one of the first government-bought IEP trains, now in Virgin livery and rechristened Azumas by the private operators, a name with echoes of the Japanese rising sun. “Like a new day dawning on the railway,” said Souter.
But City analysts were flagging concerns. And by the time Grayling came to the Commons in November 2017 to announce a “rail strategy” that slipped in news that VTEC’s contract would be replaced in 2020 by an East Coast Partnership, investors had already factored in heavy losses.
Stagecoach’s share price bounced back on Grayling’s plan, widely described as a £2bn bailout – the value of the remaining payments to the government due from VTEC’s owners had the contract continued from 2020 until 2023. Condemnation was largely led by Lord Adonis, the former Labour transport secretary who nationalised the line when National Express failed to meet payments in 2009.
It is not clear why Grayling then waited until this week to announce the franchise’s imminent collapse – stoking fury by simultaneously confirming a direct award to extend Virgin’s West Coast deal, a contract now held, without competition, from 2012 to 2020.
Officially, Stagecoach had “breached a financial covenant”, although the company has not acknowledged this, and the financials have not altered significantly. The mooted East Coast Partnership was met with some bemusement – one well-placed rail industry figure said there was “no chance of it being up and running, and absolutely the last place you’d do something like that”. A Stagecoach statement spoke of “a hardening of the DfT’s negotiating position, coinciding with increased media and political scrutiny”.
Adonis himself sees it differently – that once the ink was dry on the West Coast extension, the rules had changed and Grayling had lost his bargaining chips. He said: “I’ve sat around a table from Brian Souter. He knows when he’s got his man. Stagecoach are playing Grayling.”
DfT officials are now assessing the relative cost of returning the East Coast franchise to public sector control or allowing VTEC to continue on a “not-for-profit” basis – which would nonetheless relieve them of paying hundreds of millions due to be paid to the government in the original deal. Other train companies will be watching intently as they too grapple with franchises whose ambitious promised payments to the government rely on passenger growth that has not materialised, or even gone into reverse.
Had Stagecoach continued to deliver its payments, which in the second and third year were roughly 30% higher than East Coast under its previous operator DOR, and improved the service, it would have been compelling vindication for those who urged its restoration to the private sector. Instead, Virgin joins the ranks of those who bet high on East Coast and saw it all go south.“
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/10/east-coast-line-bailout-rail-privatisation-spotlight
“Councils used as ‘human shields’ for cuts, says John McDonnell”
“John McDonnell has accused the government of using cash-strapped local councils as “human shields” to absorb deep spending cuts by the Treasury.
The shadow chancellor seized on reports that Surrey – where the Runneymede and Weybridge constituency of the chancellor, Philip Hammond, is located – was facing a £100m cash crisis.
Analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism identified Surrey as the council facing the largest gap between expected revenues and expenditures in the coming financial year. The average deficit at the 150 councils the bureau examined was £14.7m.
Meanwhile, a survey of senior council officials by the Local Government Information Unit thinktank found that almost 80% had no confidence in the future sustainability of council finances.
McDonnell said: “If you ever wanted to see the utter failure of this government, look no further than your local council. Many are struggling to maintain many basic services because they are being forced to pass on Tory cuts.
“There needs to be an urgent change of direction in local government funding in this country. We need to see an end to a situation whereby Tory governments are using local councils like human shields as they continue to drive ahead with their failed austerity agenda.”
McDonnell appeared at a conference in Preston alongside the shadow communities secretary, Andrew Gwynne.
Many of the councils under greatest financial pressure are in Tory-held areas, and Conservative MPs have put pressure on the government to relieve the squeeze in particular areas.
Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, announced an extra £150m this week specifically to be spent on social care in areas of greatest need, amid a growing backlash from backbenchers.
But council leaders said it would not be enough to meet rapidly increasing needs.
The LGIU’s survey of councils’ finances suggested that 94% are planning to raise council tax in the coming year to make ends meet, and 65% will be dipping into their financial reserves.
In his speech, McDonnell highlighted alternative approaches to delivering local services.
Labour believes the threat to council services, such as social care and support for children, are the latest stark illustration of the ongoing impact of austerity.
The government has promised to put social care funding on a sustainable footing; but a green paper on the issue is not due to be published until next summer.”
“Decline of local journalism threatens democracy, says May”
In East Devon we had two local newspaper publishers: “View from … ” titles – a campaigning newspaper which recently closed and Archant (Midweek Herald and Journal titles) which basically mostly prints press releases from EDDC and elsewhere almost verbatim and pads them with anodyne articles, often linked to advertisers.
It is left now to bloggers such as Owl and campaigning Facebook groups (such as Save our Sidmouth and Save Exmouth Seafront) to use local sources to root out the stories Archant chooses not to print. Local campaigning newspaper journalism in East Devon is therefore pretty much on its last legs.
“The decline of local journalism is a threat to democracy and is fuelling the rise in fake news, Theresa May said while launching a review into whether state intervention was needed to preserve national and local newspapers.
The investigation is set to examine the rise of low-quality “clickbait” news and whether more could be done by either the industry or government to undermine commercial incentives to produce such content.
Speaking in Manchester to mark 100 years since the Representation of the People Act, which extended the vote to all men over 21 and some women over the age of 30, May said advances in modern technology were having “a profound impact on one of the cornerstones of our public debate – our free press”.
The review will examine the supply chain for digital advertisers and whether content creators, rather than platforms, are getting enough of the revenue. May said the review would examine “whether industry or government-led solutions” were needed to help tackle the issue.
The prime minister, wearing a purple jacket and suffragette pin, called journalism “a huge force for good” but said its existence was under threat. “Good quality journalism provides us with the information and analysis we need to inform our viewpoints and conduct a genuine discussion,” she said. “But in recent years, especially in local journalism, we have seen falling circulations, a hollowing-out of local newsrooms and fears for the future sustainability of high-quality journalism.”
How technology disrupted the truth | Katharine Viner
May said that more than 200 local papers had closed since 2005, naming several in Greater Manchester including the Salford Advertiser, Trafford Advertiser and Wilmslow Express. About two-thirds of local authority areas do not have a daily local newspaper.
“This is dangerous for our democracy. When trusted and credible news sources decline, we can become vulnerable to news which is untrustworthy,” she said. “So to address this challenge to our public debate we will launch a review to examine the sustainability of our national and local press. It will look at the different business models for high-quality journalism.”
May said the review would consider whether “the creators of content are getting their fair share of the advertisement revenue” from the articles they produced. “Digital advertising is now one of the essential sources of revenue for newspapers, the review will analyse how that supply chain operates,” she said. “A free press is one of the foundations on which our democracy is built and it must be preserved.”
The culture minister, Matt Hancock, said the review would investigate the overall health of the news media, the range of news available and how the press was adapting to the new digital market, including the role of platforms like Facebook and Google.
In a statement after May’s speech, Hancock said the industry was facing “an uncertain future” and the review would ensure the UK did not lose a vibrant, independent and plural free press. Hancock said it would examine “clickbait” news to consider if action needed to be taken to reduce its commercial incentive.
The review would also examine how data created or owned by news publications was collected and distributed by online platforms.
David Dinsmore, chair of the News Media Association, said he welcomed the plans: “This review acknowledges the importance of journalism in a democratic society, the vital role that the press takes in holding the powerful to account and producing verified news which informs the public. Viable business models must be found that ensure a wide variety of media are able to have a long and healthy future.”
A panel of experts will be appointed to lead the review in the coming months, with a final report expected early 2019.”
Has the NHS already been privatised? Of course it has!
People are confused when the Government says “The NHS has not been privatised” thinking: “Well, it’s still free so it can’t be private”. THIS IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO THINK. The reality is that many services have already been privatised. So, why don’t we pay for them? WE DO! The private companies (eg Virgin, which already has more than £1 billion of NHS contracts) charge the NHS for their services, adding on their cut for profits (directors salaries, perks and pensions) and their rewards to shareholders by way of dividends. This ADDS to the cost of the NHS which allows Jeremy Hunt to say we cannot afford it!
Of course we can’t if we are already paying private companies over the odds
And see the letter below this image:
For example:
Guardian letters:
“The problem with the King’s Fund’s latest analysis (NHS privatisation would be ‘political suicide’ says thinktank, theguardian.com, 1 February) is that it ignores the fact some privatisation has already taken place. Of course it would be madness for any government to hand over the whole NHS to insurance companies, or privatise it in the way that Margaret Thatcher privatised British Gas. There is not even a majority for this among Tory party members. But only a handful of people seriously believe that’s the plan: the private sector doesn’t want most of the NHS – care, complex care, treatment of chronic illness, most mental health services. No matter how wealthy you are, you can’t buy any private equivalent to NHS emergency services, maternity, or many others.
Instead private firms want to take over services that they see as potentially profitable – especially the provision of simple elective surgery – the bread and butter of Britain’s tiny private hospitals (average size 50 beds). But the lack of any public support for privatisation has not stopped commissioners giving contracts to Virgin and other private companies for work previously done by NHS trusts. This, by any reasonable definition, is privatisation. In 2015-16, 7.6% of NHS spending was on private providers.
Reshaping the law to allow this piecemeal privatisation was the aim of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which compels CCGs to put services out to tender. The King’s Fund lends weight to disingenuous government denials that they have been privatising services. They would do better to endorse demands for the repeal of the 2012 act and the reinstatement of the NHS as a publicly owned and publicly provided service.
Dr John Lister
Co-chair, Keep Our NHS Public”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/risks-of-outsourcing-and-privatisation-laid-bare
“Two Freemasons’ lodges operating secretly at Westminster”
Expect to see a comment from Owl’s East Devon Freemason’s spokesperson on this one!
“Two Freemasons’ lodges set up for members of parliament and political journalists are continuing to operate secretly at Westminster, the Guardian has learned.
New Welcome Lodge, which recruits MPs, peers and parliamentary staff, and Gallery Lodge, established for members of the political press corps known as the lobby, both remain active, according to Freemasonry records.
A third lodge called the Alfred Robbins Lodge, which was also set up for journalists, also continues to meet regularly in London.
The identities of the members of these three lodges remain unknown outside the world of Freemasonry, however, and so discreet are the members of Gallery Lodge that few journalists working in the lobby appear to be aware of its existence.
One current member of New Welcome told the Guardian that its members keep Gallery Lodge masons at arm’s length, on the grounds that while they are fellow members of the brotherhood, they are still journalists, and “they wouldn’t want journalists listening to their conversations”.
David Staples, the chief executive of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), the governing body for Freemasons in England and Wales, said there was no contradiction between the practice of journalism and membership of Freemasonry.
“Contrary to populist perception, being a Freemason helps those members in roles serving society in the broader sense, including journalists, politicians, policemen and lawyers, to be better in those jobs by encouraging them to act as better people themselves. Their membership is a positive for both them as individuals, and for society at large,” he said.
More Freemasons would declare their membership, he added, if they did not fear prejudice and discrimination: “There should be no conflict between an individual choosing whether to declare their membership or not with that individual’s ability to do their job well. But there is, because some choose to believe otherwise, and some of our detractors are doing so based on nothing other than blind prejudice.”
The disclosure that both political journalists and politicians are Freemasons comes after the outgoing chair of the Police Federation alleged that Freemasons were blocking reforms in policing and thwarting the progress of women and officers from black and minority ethnic communities.
After three years as the chair of the Police Federation, Steve White said: “I found that there were people who were fundamentally against any kind of change and any kind of progress, and they always happened to be Freemasons.”
The charge brought an angry denial from the UGLE. In a letter to the press, Staples said: “We are quietly proud that throughout history, when people have suffered discrimination both in public and social life, Freemasonry has welcomed them into our lodges as equals.” He added that many Freemasons chose to keep their membership secret in order to avoid being discriminated against.
At Westminster, MPs and peers are not obliged to declare their membership of the Freemasons, although the Commons authorities say they can disclose this information voluntarily on the registers of members’ and Lords’ financial interests. None currently do so.
Nor do any political journalists declare their membership of the Freemasons on the register of journalists’ interests, which is maintained by parliament.
The three lodges each meet four times a year at Freemasons’ Hall, the UGLE’s headquarters in Covent Garden, London.
The UGLE said Gallery Lodge currently has 45 members and Alfred Robbins Lodge – which is named after a former newspaperman and prominent mason – has 18 members.
“None of the members who have joined either of these two lodges since 2000 have their occupation recorded as journalist or anything obviously linked to the newspaper industry,” the spokesman said.
It is unclear how many of their members joined before that year, however, and UGLE will not identify the lodges’ members.
The Guardian understands past members of Gallery Lodge have included former journalists at the Times, the Daily Express, the Scotsman, and several Hansard reporters.
While the New Welcome lodge has about 30 to 40 members, the Guardian understands only about four of the current members are MPs, and that none are peers. Most of the members of the lodge are former MPs, parliamentary staff or police officers who have served at Westminster. MPs who are Freemasons are members of other lodges, however.
Although New Welcome lodge was set up following the 1926 general strike, to admit Labour politicians who had previously been refused entry to Freemasonry, the Guardian understands that none of its current members are Labour MPs.
Many are said to have left the Freemasons in the 1980s, fearing they would lose their seats if they were questioned about membership while reapplying for the Labour party’s nomination in between general elections, which had become a requirement at the start of that decade.
At least one Labour MP is said to have left New Welcome Lodge when facing reselection at this time, and arranged for his membership to be held in abeyance so that he could be quietly readmitted once he knew his parliamentary seat was secure.”
“Why money still rules the roost in British Politics” and why the very, very few control the not so many in the Tory Party
Electoral Reform Society:
“If ever there was a story which revealed the disproportionate influence exerted by big party donors, it was the on the front page of The Times on Tuesday.
The article set out what has been described as a ‘donors’ revolt’ over Theresa May’s leadership, based on an account of a fundraising event held last week.
At the event it was reported that “about a quarter of the 50 donors present were said to have demanded her resignation.”
The story reflects the nature of power in the UK: a handful of wealthy individuals can buy access to government Ministers – and with it, the ability to ensure their views are heard on the front pages.
What distinguishes these individuals from most other people, of course, is the fact they are bankrolling the Conservative Party led by Mrs May.
But should that fact alone – particularly when very few people can afford to make significant donations to a political party – entitle them to have such a domineering voice on their leader’s credentials?
In a 21st century democracy, the answer should be a clear ‘no’. The Prime Minister and the government should be accountable to all citizens – regardless of how much money they have.
But the problem of big money in politics is not a new one. Senior politicians from a variety of different parties have been held to ransom by those with the deepest pockets – a fact which has led to scandal after scandal over the years: from Labour’s ‘cash for honours’ crisis, to the Liberal Democrats being caught arranging a private meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for a potentially illegal donor.
As we noted in our report, ‘Deal or No Deal: How to Put an End to Party Funding Scandals’, there is an expectation that comes with donations. The Committee on Standards in Public Life interviewed several of the major party donors in 2011, throwing up some uncomfortable if wholly logical conclusions about the relationship between donations, policy influence and honors.
Donor Stuart Wheeler suggested it was ‘natural’ and unobjectionable that donors would gain policy influence: “If it is influence in the sense of being able to put their views on what is best for the country and how the country should be run, I do not see any objection to that.”
House of Lords appointee Michael Farmer suggested that many donors would expect an honour in return for their finance:
“You cannot get away from the fact that the word ‘peerage’ is connected to large donations, so if you are giving a large donation there is a part of your mind somewhere that every now and then thinks about it”
The problem with the UK’s big-donor culture, even when the donations are legitimate, is that it gives those with the most money a disproportionately large say.
The story this week concerned just a handful of very rich individuals. Compare that to the 12.4 million people who voted for the Conservative party at last year’s election.
It highlights once again that the system of party funding in this country is broken and skews politics away from ordinary people who should be at the forefront of politicians’ minds when they are making decisions.
The ability to purchase political influence is damaging to trust and confidence in our democratic institutions. It is time we had a fairer model for funding our politics – one which put voters at the centre.”
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-money-still-rules-the-roost-in-british-politics/
Scrutiny and Privatisation don’t go together like a horse and carriage
“A leading Capita shareholder has attacked the embattled outsourcing giant for flouting corporate governance rules, and claimed its current crisis was “preventable”.
Royal London Asset Management said it had been “privately raising concerns about Capita’s weak governance for a number of years” and had repeatedly voted against pay deals.
Shares in Capita crashed 55% last week after its new chief executive Jon Lewis said it would need a £700m rights issue, suspended its dividend and launched a fire sale of assets. Lewis, the former chief executive of oil services company Amec Foster Wheeler, plans to simplify the outsourcing behemoth, which has contracts ranging from army recruitment to Tesco Bank’s call centres.
The broadside by Royal London, a 0.4% shareholder, said the new board must “ensure that Capita does not repeat the mistakes of the past”. Royal London’s corporate governance chief, Ashley Hamilton Claxton, said: “Until recently, Capita’s board flouted one of the basic rules of the corporate governance code, with a small board primarily comprised of management insiders. The result was a board that lacked the independent spirit to rigorously assess whether the company was making the right long-term decisions.”
She added that Capita’s pay policy “left something to be desired” — citing big losses in 2013 that were excluded from the calculations on executives’ pay.”
Source: Sunday Times (paywall)
Hinkley C: whose Big Brother will be watching it?
“China planted bugs to spy on discussions at the glittering African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa that it built five years ago, it has been claimed.
The alleged hack was discovered when IT engineers investigated why the centre’s computer servers reached a peak for data activity between midnight and 2am. They found that the servers were connected to others in Shanghai, and were transferring information, according to an investigation by the French newspaper Le Monde.
Ethiopian cybersecurity experts found microphones hidden in desks and walls and at the time, last January, there were Chinese engineers in the building managing its computers.
African heads of state and AU civil servants remained unaware of the discovery, one AU official told the paper. “We have taken some steps to strengthen our cybersecurity,” he said. “We remain very exposed.”
The £141 million HQ was built and paid for by the Chinese in a symbol of the mutually beneficial friendship between the world’s youngest populations and one of its wealthiest nations.
The construction of buildings, roads, ports and railways across Africa, has helped China edge out former colonisers and western partners and gain pole position in the battle for Africa’s human capital and mineral wealth.
The revelation over the bugs came as African leaders and officials converge for the AU’s annual summit.
Kuang Weilin, China’s ambassador to the AU, called the claims “ridiculous and preposterous” and said their publication was sour grapes. “China-Africa relations have brought benefits and a lot of opportunities. Africans are happy with it. Others are not,” he said. “People in the West . . . are not used to it and they are not comfortable with this.”
Source: The Times (paywall)
Claire Wright and Martin Shaw fighting heroically for our NHS
Thank heavens we have Claire Wright and Martin Shaw fighting so hard for our NHS on a daily basis and don’t have to leave the fight to Swire, Diviani, Sarah Randall-Johnson and East Devon Tories – or there would be no fight at all!!!
Holding NHS Property Services to account:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/nhs_property_services_and_nhs_managers_requested_to_fully_engage_over_commu
Getting those winter performance figures that Randall-Johnson was happy to wait months for:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/new_devon_ccg_to_provide_performance_winter_pressures_reports_within_days
Social care not working:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/latest_devon_social_care_survey_reveals_concerns_among_people_about_service
Ambulance service under intense pressure due to cost-cutting:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/devon_county_council_health_scrutiny_committee_records_its_concerns_over_am
Decisions on community hospitals:
Health Scrutiny hears there will be no precipitate decisions on community hospitals – local conversations with CCG and RD&E offer chance to shape ‘place-based health systems’ around towns
Declining performance:
Devon’s health system’s declining performance over last 12 months – and Health Scrutiny still waiting for winter crisis evidence
East Devon Watch 