Category Archives: Transparency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Midweek Herald, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

3 Comments

The only campaigning newspaper group in East Devon closes

Owl says: a sad loss. But not surprising when competing titles from Archant Newspapers (Midweek Herald, Sidmouth Herald, Exmouth Journal) for example received 80% of EDDC’s advertising.

The eastern side of East Devon has now not only lost community hospital beds and transport links it has lost the only titles not simply regurgitating press releases passed off as “news” but actively supported the community with real news and genuine investigative journalism.

“A series of newspapers covering Devon, Dorset and Somerset has closed blaming a fall in revenue.

The View From series was based in Lyme Regis, Dorset, with editions covering Axminster, Seaton and Honiton in Devon, Bridport, Dorchester and Weymouth in Dorset, and South Somerset. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/newspaper-series-covering-east-devon-1019184

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“MPs To Block Ex-IPSA Chief Sir Ian Kennedy From New Watchdog Post As ‘Revenge’ For Expenses Crackdown”

“MPs are blocking a new taxpayer-funded job for former IPSA chief Sir Ian Kennedy as “revenge” for his crackdown in the wake of Parliament’s expenses scandal, HuffPost UK can reveal.

Tory and Labour backbenchers are set to deploy little-used Commons procedures to stymie plans to appoint Kennedy to the board of the Electoral Commission.

Kennedy, who led the drive to reform the system after the 2009 MPs’ expenses affair, has been recommended as a new Commissioner for the elections watchdog, a four-year post which carries a salary of £359-a-day.

But MPs plan to shout ‘object’ when a formal procedural motion on the appointment is tabled in the Commons next Monday, its first day back after the Christmas recess.

The rebels, who only need one objection to delay the motion, plan to continue their protest indefinitely, forcing the Commission to either withdraw the appointment or leave the post vacant. …”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mps-to-block-election-commission-appointment-of-ex-ipsa-sir-ian-kennedy-as-revenge-for-mps-expenses-crackdown_uk_5a4ce876e4b0b0e5a7aa1d9

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Conflict of interest” at Hinkley C (oddly, not at our LEP!)

What’s the fuss – they should be looking MUCH closer to home at the members (and influential past members) of our Local Enterprise Partnership for much more conflict and much more interest!

“Consultancy firms working for the government on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station were advising the project’s Chinese investor and its French builder at the same time, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

KPMG, the professional services group, was paid £4.4 million between 2012 and 2017 as a financial adviser to the energy and business departments, despite telling officials that it was also acting for China General Nuclear Power Corp on the project.

The apparent conflict of interest has been revealed after the Information Commissioner’s Office intervened to press for disclosure from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Previously, officials had redacted the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive.

In a second potential conflict, Lazard, the financial advisory firm, was paid £2.6 million between 2012 and 2015 to advise the business department on Hinkley Point. Details of its previously redacted tender documents reveal that it was an adviser to EDF, the French developer that is investing in Hinkley Point alongside the Chinese. A source said that Lazard’s advice to EDF was not related to the Somerset project.

MPs expressed concern about the perceived conflicts. The government has struck a 35-year deal under which the energy companies could receive £50 billion above market prices.

Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said that Hinkley Point was crucial public infrastructure and therefore it was “vital that auditors get full sight” of the potential conflicts. It “looks cosy”, she said, adding that it was “not really appropriate” for firms to be advising both sides.

The details have been released more than a year and half after The Times complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which informally advised the business department to reconsider its position. The department previously had handed over heavily redacted documents in response to a Freedom of Information request.

The Information Commissioner’s Office said that there was a “significant and important public interest”, something that had been strengthened by a report from the National Audit Office in June, which found that the government’s deal had “locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”. The project has been riddled with delays and controversy over its spiralling costs.

The National Audit Office also criticised the business department for insufficiently managing the potential conflict of Leigh Fisher, another government adviser. The Times reported in November 2016 that Leigh Fisher, the management consultant, had been awarded contracts worth a combined £1.2 million despite telling officials that the British division of Jacobs Engineering Group, an American firm that owns Leigh Fisher, was working for EDF on Hinkley Point.

In tendering for a 2015 contract, KPMG told officials that “as DECC [the Department of Energy & Climate Change] is fully aware, a KPMG team is currently acting for [China General Nuclear Power Corp] in relation to their potential investment into [Hinkley Point C]. This work is being carried out by a team, separate to the KPMG team acting for DECC, operating under strict internal conditions.” The auditing firm added that it had “mature policies and procedures . . . to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest”, including “properly segregated resources . . . to handle the projects”.

In Lazard’s 82-page tender document in 2013, which initially was almost entirely redacted, it told officials “that it has no conflict of interest in respect of the work contemplated by the ITT [intention to tender] regarding the development at Hinkley Point C. The Lazard group does have a relationship with Electricité de France [EDF] led out of its Paris office and is assisting it with a current advisory mandate that has no bearing on, and creates no conflict with, the advisory work contemplated by the ITT but this will not prejudice in any manner the qualifications of a Lazard team led out of its London office to provide the high-quality, independent advice contemplated by the ITT.”

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who has campaigned against Hinkley Point C, said that the project was the “worst civil investment decision made by any government” and that the potential conflicts were “further proof that the contract was agreed for political imperatives . . . To avoid future calamities, a full national inquiry must be held.”

Leigh Fisher said that it “managed the work and resources in accordance with agreed protocols throughout”.

The National Audit Office was not aware of the KPMG and Lazard situations. On Leigh Fisher, it said: “Placing the onus on Leigh Fisher to manage the potential conflict is not in line with good practice”; “by the time Leigh Fisher did confirm it was complying with arrangements stipulated by the department, it had already completed the majority of its work”; “the department did not receive any monthly updates on the arrangements in place, as it had requested”; and that “even when the department did stipulate ethical wall arrangements, they were below the standard we would expect”.

The business department said: “In line with our requirements, both Lazard and KPMG outlined their policy on dealing with any potential conflicts of interest in their tender documents, together with the actions they would take to mitigate these. As a result, we are satisfied that the perceived conflicts had no impact on the work carried out under the contract(s).”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, Planning System, Police (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

“Freemasons are blocking reform, says Police Federation leader”

Remember how Owl was taken to task for saying planners took more notice of Freemasons than town councillors …

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/15/buckfastleigh-dissolves-its-planning-committee-as-district-and-county-councils-take-no-notice-of-its-recommendations/

Well …

“Reform in policing is being blocked by members of the Freemasons, and their influence in the service is thwarting the progress of women and people from black and minority ethnic communities, the leader of rank-and-file officers has said.

Steve White, who steps down on Monday after three years as chair of the Police Federation, told the Guardian he was concerned about the continued influence of Freemasons.

White took charge with the government threatening to take over the federation if it did not reform after a string of scandals and controversies.

The Freemasons is one of the world’s oldest secular societies, made up of people, predominantly men, concerned with moral and spiritual values. Their critics say they are secretive and serve the interests of their members over the interests of the public. The Masons deny this, saying they uphold values in keeping with public service and high morals.

White told the Guardian: “What people do in their private lives is a matter for them. When it becomes an issue is when it affects their work. There have been occasions when colleagues of mine have suspected that Freemasons have been an obstacle to reform.

“We need to make sure that people are making decisions for the right reasons and there is a need for future continuing cultural reform in the Fed, which should be reflective of the makeup of policing.”

One previous Metropolitan police commissioner, the late Sir Kenneth Newman, opposed the presence of Masons in the police.

White would not name names, but did not deny that some key figures in local Police Federation branches were Masons.

White said: “It’s about trust and confidence. There are people who feel that being a Freemason and a police officer is not necessarily a good idea. I find it odd that there are pockets of the organisation where a significant number of representatives are Freemasons.”

The Masons deny any clash or reason police officers should not be members of their organisation.

Mike Baker, spokesman for the United Grand Lodge, said: “Why would there be a clash? It’s the same as saying there would be a clash between anyone in a membership organisation and in a public service.

“We are parallel organisations, we fit into these organisations and have high moral principles and values.”

Baker said Freemasonry was open to all, the only requirement being “faith in a supreme being”. He said there were a number of police officers who were Masons and police lodges, such as the Manor of St James, set up for Scotland Yard officers, and Sine Favore, set up in 2010 by Police Federation members. One of those was the Met officer John Tully, who went on to be chair of the federation and, after retirement from policing, is an administrator at the United Grand Lodge of England.

Masons in the police have been accused of covering up for fellow members and favouring them for promotion over more talented, non-Mason officers.

White said: “Some female representatives were concerned about Freemason influence in the Fed. The culture is something that can either discourage or encourage people from the ethnic minorities or women from being part of an organisation.”

The federation has passed new rules on how it runs itself, aimed at ending the fact that its key senior officials are all white, and predominantly male.

White said he hoped the new rules would lead to an end to old white men dominating the federation: “The new regulations will mean Freemasons leading to an old boys’ network will be much less likely in the future. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/31/freemasons-blocking-reform-police-federation-leader

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Midweek Herald, Scrutiny, Transparency

How one local newspaper changed government policy

“The well-documented squeeze on local journalism, including cuts to staff numbers, pressure from social media and low pay is bound to affect the nature and quality of local news.

The Grenfell Tower tragedy is one shocking example of this. In November 2016 two residents blogged about the possibility of “a serious fire in a tower block”. Why wasn’t this warning picked up locally? The Kensington and Chelsea Chronicle, which had covered residents’ concerns, closed in 2014 and content migrated online to Get West London. Although the Kensington and Chelsea News reopened as part of another group, its sole reporter couldn’t afford to live in the borough and remotely covered the patch from his home in Dorset.

In the case of the vice-chancellor pay story [broken by local newspaper The Bath Chronicle], while to some it looked like a David v Goliath tale of a local rag taking on a giant local employer, the biggest challenge was possibly my newspaper’s business model. To attract advertising, reporters must strive for web hits – it’s a daily pressure in our newsrooms. Like all in Trinity Mirror, the Bath Chronicle is “audience-driven”, meaning that if a story is not getting enough clicks there’s no justification for continuing to cover it.

Even though it was clear there was an audience for scrutiny of the university’s upper echelons, the risk of reader fatigue was always there. I had to ensure that every story took a new and engaging angle and use a different picture wherever possible. I also used social media and tweeted each article directly to 40-odd interested people for them to share or comment.

Last year the BBC announced it had set aside £8m to fund 150 “local democracy reporters”, who will work for qualifying regional publishers and will cover council meetings and public services. It’s a clear attempt to strengthen local reporting, and hold politicians and services to account. The investment should mean that more important stories are covered and may ease pressure on local newspapers as they struggle to pursue leads that need long-term attention. If we don’t hold powerful institutions across the country to account, who will?”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/29/bath-vice-chancellor-pay-local-newspapers-vital-work

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

An A and E consultant speaks … and begs for our help

“Dear Journalists,

As an A&E consultant I am writing to ask for your help.

Up and down the country our A&E departments are in meltdown, our staff are at breaking point and we need your help.

Patients are being left in corridors because there are no ward beds for them to go to, staff are leaving shifts demoralised and exhausted and most importantly our patients are not getting the care they deserve.

We need the public to know about this, not to scaremonger, but for the truth to be out there – as the only way to get politicans to change – is by voters knowing the reality and prioritising the NHS at the ballot box.

But without the public understanding what is going on, we will continue to have this crisis year after year after year. This is where we need your help. We need you to report the reality and not peddle the propaganda from our politicians.

The crisis is much worse than what you report. We all talk about the 4 hour target and that we get around 90%. But that includes all the patients who don’t need admission. But for the ones who need admission, the % who get admitted within 4 hours is so so so much lower than that. And for those patients, it is crucial for their well being, that they get admitted within four hours.

Why are you not asking for these figures? That would help reveal the truth.

Then you report 12 hour breaches. But in England (but not the rest of the UK) the clock starts ticking when a specialist senior has seen them. So they can be in A&E for 18 hours and not be a 12 hour breach.

Why are you not asking for the figures of patients who stay in A&E for more than 12 hours? That would help reveal the truth

And what about asking how many patients are spending time in corridors?

Because if you did reveal these figures – you would soon see the real extent of the crisis. And it is a crisis. One which will lead to a breaking point soon unless something changes.

The fault does not lie with the patients. Yes a few inappropriately attend – but they are not the problem; they can be quickly turned around and discharged.

The fault is not with the staff. They are working tirelessly and doing an amazing job despite the conditions they are working in.

The fault does not lie wth managers and hospital executives. They are working relentlessly to make things work as well as they can.

And despite what the governmnet peddle it certainly is not the fault of the GPs. Although there is falling numbers of GP surgeries, they are doing an amazing job at reducing the number of A&E attendances. Most importantly, the fault does not lie with the ‘system’ of the NHS – a model of care which utilities its resources to maximal effect.

The fault lies with the government.

Years of failed austerity depriving NHS and councils of vital monies and investment is taking its toll. A&Es are struggling because of the frail elderly who need a ward bed but cant get one.

They can’t get one because there are not enough beds within our hospitals (we have one of the smallest numbers of bed per capita in the whole of Europe) and because those that need to get out of hospital can’t because of a lack of social care.

In addition some money which has been spent on the NHS had been wasted on pointless reorganisations designed to start the process of NHS privatisation.

Please start reporting that. Please start reporting the truth. Please start reporting how close we are to melt down and please help get the public worked up about what is going on.

Because sadly our government don’t seem that bothered. They and their friends can afford private health care and therefore don’t rely on it. Even worse many would be happy to see our NHS privatised.

But for everyone else we need the NHS. The staff will battle on (and it is a battle at the moment). We will continue to do everything we can. We will continue to adapt, modernise and reform. We will continue to provide the most amazing possible care despite the conditions. But there is only so much our staff can take. And if we lose our staff we lose the NHS.

Journalists -we need your help. Please help.

And if you are not a journalist reading this, please share (publicly), or tweet it or send onto your friends in the hope that journalists will pick this up and start reporting the truth.

Rob Galloway A&E Consultant
@drrobgalloway

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Tories, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

Rank and file Tories fear for the end of their party

This appears to be a legitimate Conservative party group whichis highly critical of attempt to de-democratise their party. The views are their ownand are shown verbatim:

From the blog of:
http://copov.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/last-chance-to-save-conservative-party.html

CAMPAIGN FOR CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRACY
(COPOV: Conservative, One Person One Vote)

“Friday, December 15, 2017
Last Chance to save the Conservative Party

Changes to the Conservative Party Constitution
or
How to give more power to the hierarchy

At a meeting of the National Convention held on 25th November in Birmingham the following changes to the Conservative Party Constitution were discussed and passed to be formally proposed at the next National Convention meeting on 16th March 2018. About 100 members turned up on 25th November for this meeting out of the 1,000 members of the Convention. For only the second time in the last fifteen years ordinary Party members were excluded from the Convention even as observers.

If these rule changes go through you may as well bring down the final curtain on the Conservative Party and on it will the written:

The Tory Party. The End

1) “Constituency Associations” are abolished.

In future we will just have “Associations” which will consist of one or more Constituency Associations.

This is a sad day. For 150 years the Constituency Association has been the building block of the Conservative Party. No longer. This is the management of decline.

2) The Annual Meeting of the National Convention to be abolished.
Voting for Officers of the Convention will now be done “online”. Officers will give reports “online”

This means that there will be no hustings meeting at which the candidates will speak. It also means that there cannot be questions to the candidates. In the early days of the Convention a motion was passed calling for hustings at which the candidates were questioned. The motion was passed overwhelmingly. The Officers ignored it. Now there is no chance. Also no opportunity to question the Officers on their reports. This is North Korean style democracy.

Why don’t they just abolish the National Convention and have an Annual General Meeting to which every member is invited and at which the Party Chairman is elected by the members?

3) Selection of Candidates to be centrally controlled.

15 SELECTION OF CANDIDATES

15.1 The selection of all candidates, including Parliamentary, Police Commissioners, Elected Mayors and local government candidates shall follow a process in accordance with rules and guidance published from time to time by the Committee on Candidates of the Board of the Party (as established under Schedule 6 of the Party Constitution)

All further articles up to and including 15.2.5 to be removed

The entire section of the Constitution which spells out the way in which candidates are to be selected has been deleted. All selection will now be determined by the Committee on Candidates which will also determine the procedures for selecting candidates. So a small group of appointed people unaccountable to the membership will now determine all candidates. This small group of unaccountable people will effectively decide who shall become a Conservative Member of Parliament and from them who will be in Government. What happened to democracy? This is disgraceful. It shows complete contempt for the people. What have we come to?

By adopting this proposal the last vestiges of any rights for Party members has been eliminated. Now they have no rights at all!

4) Conservative Policy Forum
Under the existing Constitution:

65 The Board shall appoint a Director of the Conservative Policy Forum whose responsibilities shall include the formation of a structure to co-ordinate the activities of the Political Deputy Chairmen of the Area Management Executives and Constituency Associations.

This is to be replaced by:

65 The Board shall appoint a Director of the Conservative Policy Forum on the recommendation of the Chairman of the National Convention, whose responsibilities shall include co-ordinating the policy-related activities of the Associations and Area Management Executives.

Why should the Chairman of the National Convention recommend the Director of the Conservative Policy Forum – to increase his power or a nice bit of cronyism?

66.3 Three representatives elected by the Political Deputy Chairmen of the Area Management Executives in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 5 .
This provision of the Constitution was never adhered to so instead of enforcing it what did they do? Delete it! So now, every member of the Council of the Conservative Policy Forum is appointed. Jobs for the boys!

5) Area Councils
The Constitution states:

4 Any member of an Association within an Area may stand for election within that Area to the Area Management Executive provided they are proposed and seconded by members of an Area Council in the Area in which they are standing for election.

5 The election shall take place at the meeting of the Area Council. The election shall be by secret ballot. The Returning Officer shall be a member of the professional staff of the Party, nominated for the purpose by the Board.

The only problem is that there is no requirement for members to be told when the date of the meeting of the Area Council is or indeed who are members of it, so they have become self perpetuating oligarchies.

6) National Convention
The existing Constitution states that:

5 Any nominee for any such office or post referred to in Paragraph 2.2 herein shall have been a Member of the National Convention for not less than two years.

This is now replaced by:

5 Any nominee for any such office or post referred to in Paragraph 2.2 herein shall have been a Member of the National Convention for not less than the two years preceding the date of close of nominations.

So you cannot stand for office until you are in the third year as a member and are currently a member The effect of this is that none of the officers will have any long term historical knowledge of the workings of the Convention

6 Any nominee for the office of President shall have been an elected member of the Board for one year.

This is changed to:

6 Any nominee for the office of President shall have been an elected member of the Board for one year preceding the date of close of nominations.
Same comment as above

It is time for the Conservative Members of Parliament to stop being so supine and get off sitting on their hands and oppose these changes. If they don’t, then at the next General Election the only activists left in their constituencies will be themselves!
Posted by John Strafford at 9:32 AM”

http://copov.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/last-chance-to-save-conservative-party.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Corruption, Developers/ Development, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Local Plan, Philip Skinner, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

The disgraced ex-EDDC Tory Councillor Graham Brown “If I can’t get planning, nobody will” scandal refuses to die

Remember the disgraced ex-Councilor Graham Brown scandal?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

Well, it refuses to die.

The Sunday Times today (page 29, main paper) mentions it in passing in an article entitled “Bricks, Bribery and Planning – the flaw built into our planning rules” (full text to follow shortly).

“But the depressing truth is that corruption is endemic in Britain’s bureaucratic planning system. In every corner of the country, you can fund stories of bribery, with local councillors and officials rigging the planning system for their own gain.

Doncaster, Enfield, Greater Manchester, EAST DEVON – these are just a handful of local authorities where corrupt practices have been discovered in planning departments. In other words, the corruption is systemic and it’s caused by the inadequacy of Britain’s property rights”. …”

Brown, at various times, headed up the East Devon Business Forum, was also highly influential in the early stages of the Local Development Plan (which wasted two years or more mostly visiting big development sites owned by prominent businessmen and which had to be abandoned and re-started under the later chairmanship of Councillor Philip Skinner).

Brown held many other posts throughout his long career as an EDDC councillor, mostly related to planning, while running his local planning consultancy business – a fact of which other Tory majority party councillors and officers were very well aware, but did not perceive as not being a conflict of interest – until the Daily Telegraph sting.

His only censure was to be kicked out of his local Tory party – local police refused to be involved with an inquiry due to insufficient evidence. Were local planners and councillors – or even the Daily Telegraph or Anna Minton – asked for evidence? We have no idea.

Brown features (as does East Devon generally – a whole chapter) in the Anna Minton expose “ Scaring the Living Daylights Out of People: The Local Lobby and the Failure of Democracy” (Section 3: The Local Mafia: Conflicts of Interest in East Devon”) :

Click to access scaring-the-living-daylights-final.pdf

As a final insult to injury, after his departure from EDDC he attempted to get the agricultural tie lifted from the farmhouse in which he lived (which would have greatly increased its value by up to 40%) until a local investigation (led by East Devon Alliance) uncovered the fact that he had been receiving EU farming subsidies to the tune of at least £850,000 throughout the period he said he was no longer farming:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/09/22/ex-councillor-browns-facts-disputed-2/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

Accountable Care Organisations: angels or devils?

Owl says: if you believe that Accountable Care Organisations are a good thing you will believe anything. Back-door privatisation a la USA and a ruthless way of enforcing rationing and post code lotteries rather than proper funding.

“Accountable care organisations have many strengths but should be openly debated before being implemented.

The war over the future of the NHS is being fought on multiple fronts. Campaigners, the Labour party, the government, NHS England and even Stephen Hawking are locked in combat over the structure, funding, transparency, accountability and legality of the current wave of reforms, along with the never-ending fight about privatisation – real or imagined.

The famous physicist has joined campaigners in a high court bid to block the introduction of accountable care organisations to oversee local services without primary legislation, arguing they could lead to privatisation, rationing and charging.

Meanwhile, the shadow health secretary, Jon Ashworth, has tabled a Commons early day motion after the government announced plans to amend regulations to support the operation of accountable care organisations. Ashworth argues that they are a profound change to the NHS that should be debated in parliament.

Accountable care – a term imported from the US, where it plays a key role in Obamacare – can take many forms, but it typically involves an alliance of providers with a fixed budget collaborating to manage the health needs of their local population. NHS England wants to see sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs) evolving into accountable care systems in which integrated care supports good physical and mental health.

In June, NHS England announced that eight areas would be leading the accountable care drive. Greater Manchester is also adopting this approach, and many others are starting to use the accountable care language.

Accountable care has the potential to address many of the criticisms the most vociferous supporters of the NHS have made for many years. It goes a long way to replace competition with collaboration, and the NHS England chief executive, Simon Stevens, said it could mark the end of the infamous purchaser/provider split, which weighs down the health service with costly and often pointless bureaucracy.

Locally led, integrated systems are essential if we are going to shift the NHS from a 1970s-style hospital service to one that provides a community-based health and wellbeing service. Pooling budgets across the local area is not a ruse to disguise cuts. It is the most effective way to manage public money, irrespective of the level of funding.

The court case confuses the issue of how the NHS is organised with its funding and the role of the private sector. These are three different issues.

But the legal basis for accountable care is shaky. Faced with the wreckage left by Andrew Lansley’s infamous 2012 reforms, NHS England introduced STPs because trying to plan services through more than 200 clinical commissioning groups was never going to work.

As demand climbed, funding flatlined in the aftermath of the 2008 crash and managing long-term conditions became the dominant challenge; it was imperative to move from competition to collaboration and set a long-term goal of population health management. That is where accountable care comes in.

STPs and accountable care are operating under legislation meant for clinical commissioning groups – so collaborative systems typically serving 1.2 million people in which local government and all parts of the NHS have a say are underpinned by a legal framework for GP-managed competition overseeing populations of 250,000.

This is such a precarious legal balancing act that the 2017 Conservative manifesto promised to tidy up the legislation and regulations. But introducing an NHS bill now would be political harakiri for Theresa May, and most health service staff would prefer legal ambiguity to yet another round of organisational upheaval that would inevitably follow legislation.

So the choice is to either continue to find legal bodges to allow the NHS to collaborate and plan or – if the high court challenge succeeds – to return to the Lansley dream-turned-nightmare of full-blooded competition.

But although the thinking behind the legal challenge is muddled, that campaign and Labour’s early day motion highlight the major problem: a profound change in the management and leadership of the NHS is being introduced without informed public and parliamentary discussion.

The new approach has many strengths, but introducing it under the radar only serves to feed anxieties and misconceptions about the objective. NHS England needs to get the discussion about accountable care out in the open.”

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2017/dec/15/under-radar-nhs-reforms-fuelling-public-anxiety

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Lobbying, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

“DAVID DAVIS WENT FOR DINNER WITH DAILY MAIL EDITOR AFTER BAILING EARLY ON FIRST ROUND OF BREXIT TALKS”

“Remember when David Davis ran out on the first round of Brexit negotiations after less than an hour? Now we know a bit about what he was doing instead.

The Brexit Secretary had declared it was “time to get down to business” ahead of the talks – but then skipped the majority of the discussions.

He turned up in Brussels at 8am on July 17, spent 15 minutes having a “friendly chat” with EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier and another 45 minutes in a meeting with their respective officials.

After being photographed without any papers and a quick press conference, he was on the Eurostar back to London.

A Government spokesperson told the media at the time that Davis had planned to leave early but denied that the decision was connected to a vote in Parliament.

So what did he get up to upon his return to London? Something more useful than dealing with the nitty gritty of Brexit negotiations?

Transparency documents published by DExEU last night offer us an interesting insight.

They show that on July 18 – while talks were still ongoing in Brussels – Davis had dinner with Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre. …

The Brexit Secretary only reappeared in Brussels when talks finished on July 20 for a press conference which didn’t go well.

Davis was criticised by Barnier over a “lack of clarity” in the Government’s position over the divorce bill.

That’s unsurprising given the extraordinary but real possibility that he may well have spent more time speaking to Dacre than Barnier about Brexit that week.

And it might also explain why, 18 months after the referendum, he’s only just made “sufficient progress” in negotiations.

Proud of yourself, Davis?”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/12/david-davis-went-for-dinner-with-daily-mail-editor-after-bailing-early-on-first-round-of-brexit-talks/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Planning System, Transparency

Comments

4 Comments

Buckfastleigh dissolves its planning committee – as district and county councils take no notice of its recommendations

Most districts are more likely to take the views of their local Tory association and/or Freemasons Lodges and/or developers than any of its town councils! Well done Buckfastleigh for recognising and admitting this.

“Town Council Dissolve Planning Committee

Yesterday (Wed 13th Dec 2017), at the Buckfastleigh Full Town Council meeting, The Council decided to dissolve it’s Planning Committee.

The Planning, Environment & Transport Committee, which evolved from the Planning Committee that was in place until 2015, has up till now examined and responded on every local planning application made to the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA), Teignbridge District Council (TDC) or Devon County Council (DCC).

At the meeting we observed that as a Town Council we have in fact had no powers in terms of planning since 1974, when TDC took over most of the powers of the then Buckfastleigh Urban District Council, but that many local people still felt that we had some control over planning decisions. This has led to both misplaced hope that bringing a case to the Planning Committee will make a difference to their case and consequent blame when planning decisions go ahead regardless of their concerns.

It has been made quite clear in recent years that the carefully considered and well-informed responses to planning applications to DNPA, TDC and DCC have been ignored by their planning authorities in reaching decisions. In fact the Town Council has recently a formal complaint with DCC about it’s inability to enforce planning legislation and it’s misconduct in issuing planning notices in the case of Whitecleave Quarry.

Since the start of this council in May 2015, none of the responses submitted by the council in response to any major planning proposal in the parish has had an appreciable effect on the outcome. This includes the Town Council’s responses to the DNPA for piecemeal development of the Devonia site at the heart of the town which has now twice been given permission to demolish and build afresh. This despite the Buckfastleigh Neighbourhood Plan, initiated by the Town Council, which, after prolonged and detailed consultation with local residents, has recommended developing a Masterplan for the site which takes into account flood mitigation and coherent future mixed-use and also after assurances that DNPA would work ‘closely’ with us in future and that ‘mistakes’ had been made in the past.

We are quite sure too that our carefully expressed concerns about the upcoming plans for 80 plus new homes at Barn Park and Holne Rd (despite proven lack of local housing need), resulting in increased traffic/parking issues, flood risk and pressure on local amenities, will also be ignored by the DNP, who, in line with the the other authorities, seem always by default to find in favour of commercial developers whilst disregarding the needs of local residents.

We feel that by maintaining a ‘Planning’ committee, which is clearly impotent, we are misleading the public and misdirecting any concerns they have. We believe it would likely have more impact if all the individual councillors and members of the public made their own representations to planning authorities (although evidence is limited that this has any effect either!) and we don’t want to be duped into inadvertently acting as fodder for those authorities going through the motions of carrying out statutory consultative procedures, unless our opinion is actually given some weight.

We will continue to flag up any planning proposals that are likely to have a significant impact on the parish and fight for the interests of our constituents, but we will no longer formally meet as a planning committee to formulate our responses – these will come from full council. The current Planning, Environment & Transport committee will be dissolved and it’s members will meet to discuss any future remit.

Buckfastleigh Town Council”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

House of Commons Council (and LEP) scrutiny report – tough new measures recommended

Recall that East Devon Alliance submitted in March 2017 a wide-ranging report on the situation in East Devon, which was considered by this committee:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/03/23/east-devon-alliance-provides-evidence-on-poor-scrutiny-at-eddc-to-parliamentary-inquiry-eddc-provides-woeful-response-ignoring-major-problems/

and

that this report calls for pilot projects of strengthened scrutiny arrangements. Wouldn’t East Devon District Council AND our LEP make wonderful pilots!

”The Government must encourage a culture change at local authorities to ensure overview and scrutiny is truly independent of the executive and can properly contribute to improving services for taxpayers, the Communities and Local Government Committee concludes.

“Lack of constructive challenge

The Committee’s report on overview and scrutiny in local government, warns that scrutiny is often not held in high enough esteem, leading to a lack of constructive challenge to improve services for residents.

It recommends measures to strengthen the independence of overview and scrutiny committees and for increased scrutiny of combined authorities, Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) and arm’s length bodies.

Scrutiny marginalised at too many local authorities

Clive Betts, Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, said:

“Scrutiny is marginalised at too many local authorities, which in extreme cases can contribute to severe service failures, letting down council taxpayers and those that rely on services.

Scrutiny of those in power is a vital part of any democratic system and has huge benefits for all. We are calling on the Government to strengthen guidance to make overview and scrutiny committees truly independent of those they are charged with holding to account and to make sure the process is properly funded and respected.

Only by rebalancing the system and ensuring scrutiny is held in high esteem will we see better decisions and the outcomes that residents who pay for council services deserve.”

Report recommendations

That overview and scrutiny committees should report to an authority’s Full Council meeting rather than to the executive, mirroring the relationship between Select Committees and Parliament.

That scrutiny committees and the executive must be distinct and that executive councillors should not participate in scrutiny other than as witnesses, even if external partners are being scrutinised.

That councillors working on scrutiny committees should have access to financial and performance data held by an authority, and that this access should not be restricted for reasons of commercial sensitivity.

That scrutiny committees should be supported by officers that are able to operate with independence and offer impartial advice to committees. There should be a greater parity of esteem between scrutiny and the executive, and committees should have the same access to the expertise and time of senior officers and the chief executive as their cabinet counterparts.

That members of the public and service users have a fundamental role in the scrutiny process and that their participation should be encouraged and facilitated by councils.

That overview and scrutiny committees should be given full access to all financial and performance information, and have the right to call witnesses, not just from their local authorities, but from other public bodies and private council contractors. They should be able to follow and investigate the spending of the public pound.

That the DCLG works with the Local Government Association and the Centre for Public Scrutiny to identify councils to take part in a pilot scheme where the impact of elected chairs on scrutiny’s effectiveness can be monitored and its merits considered.

Local Economic Partnerships

The Report also recommends that the scrutiny committees of combined local authorities have a role in monitoring the performance of Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) and that the Government commits more funding to the scrutiny of mayoral combined authorities.

The inquiry was set up to examine whether the overview and scrutiny model is meeting its objectives and how decision-makers can best be held to account.

Read the report summary:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/36903.htm

Read the report conclusions and recommendations:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/36913.htm

Read the report: Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/36902.htm

Full report:

Click to access 369.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Monitoring Officer, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Commons committee urges greater council scrutiny

A subject close to this East Devon’s heart and the cause of many sleepless days …

“A report by the Commons Communities and Local Government Committee has warned that a lack of effective scrutiny of the decisions of council leaders and elected mayors risks contributing to “severe” failures in public service provision.

The study found that funding cuts have reduced the resources and staff available to help councillors examine and challenge their activities.

The committee urges changes to Government guidance and increased funding to ensure proper oversight arrangements are in place. It also says a change of culture in local authorities is needed to prevent executives using issues of “commercial sensitivity” to hide details of deals with private companies from councillors.”

Source: Yorkshire Post, Page: 1

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Lobbying, Transparency

“THERESA MAY LECTURES CABINET ON TRANSPARENCY – ON THE SAME DAY SHE’S ACCUSED OF HIDING MEETING”

“Theresa May today told ministers they need to be more transparent – but was herself accused of keeping the public in the dark over a cash-for-access dinner with super-rich donors.

The Prime Minister’s office has published a letter that May sent to all her Cabinet ministers about the need for government transparency. She writes:

“Online transparency is crucial to delivering value for money, to cutting waste and inefficiency, and to ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way…

“…The sunlight of transparency also acts in itself as an important check and balance, and helps ensure the highest standards of public life among senior government representatives.”

Very admirable. Sadly though, these principles seem go out the window when it comes to the Conservative party.

Because, in other news today, May has been accused of “hiding her links to billionaires after secretly dining with super-rich donors.”

A source has told the Daily Mirror that May attended a “lavish meal” with a host of super-rich Tory donors, which took place hours after the Government had frozen benefits.

The meal is likely to have been part of the Tory party’s Leaders’ Group, which allows the rich to buy access to the PM and Cabinet ministers for a minimum donation of £50,000.

The Tories promised to release a list of people attending these meals with ministers once every three months – but they have failed to provide any details of events that have taken place this year.

If May really wants to improve transparency in politics she only needs to walk across the hall to have a word with Patrick McLoughlin, a minister in her department who also happens to be the Chairman of the Conservative party.

Surely she wouldn’t let her party fall below the standards she’s setting her government?”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/12/theresa-may-lectures-cabinet-on-transparency-on-the-same-day-shes-accused-of-hiding-meeting/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Electoral/Returning Officer, Electoral Commission, General Election, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

“British elections at risk from perfect storm of threats, says watchdog”

“The head of the elections watchdog has demanded urgent reform of the UK’s electoral laws and warned that the country faces a “perfect storm” of threats that could put the integrity of the system at risk.

Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission, also confirmed to the Guardian that the body has launched an inquiry into possible Russian interference in the EU referendum and is waiting for evidence from Facebook, Google and Twitter.

The regulator said that in order to police the electoral system properly, and hold politicians and campaigns to account, wholesale changes were necessary.

“We must avoid complacency to stop a perfect storm from forming which would put out democratic processes in peril,” he said.

In an interview with the Guardian, Holmes outlined a set of reform proposals which include:

New rules to require political campaigners to identify themselves on online advertising to combat Russian or other external interference in elections.

Increases in fines for political parties that find ways around election spending laws or fail to declare the source of their funding.

A new system requiring all voters to show photographic ID in polling stations.

A move away from only conducting votes on Thursdays and in schools or community halls. …

… “Electoral legislation is old, complicated and needs changing. There are proposals to do that. The government needs to give it legislative time,” Holmes said. …

… Following investigations into how the Conservative party moved campaigners and staff from its national headquarters to boost local party efforts in 2014 and 2015 – without properly declaring their hotel bills and expenses – the party was fined £70,000.

However, Holmes said the level of fines has to be increased to stop parties from taking such risks.

“Our ability to fine £20,000 for any single offence is not enough as an effective deterrent,” he said.

“Looking at the fines other regulators can apply, £20,000 looks fairly minimal. We think it should be bigger.”

Holmes also said the government should consider extending the use of photo identification at polling stations.

This suggestion follows allegations of widespread voting fraud, particularly around Asian communities in Birmingham, Bradford and east London.

The commission recommended in 2014 that voters should be required to prove their identities before casting a ballot, in the wake of widespread voter fraud in Tower Hamlets.

Critics of the plan say it potentially disenfranchises large numbers of people on low incomes who do not have photo ID.

Voting laws should also be reformed to allow new ways of voting, Holmes added.

“We should look at changes for a new generation of millennials who are the digital generation.

“We are not saying that we should move now to online voting because of the risks of hacking but that doesn’t mean that nothing ought to change.

“We need to ask ourselves whether voting on a Thursday in an old school building is the only way we can do this.”

The commission will release a report on Wednesday into the performance of returning officers at this year’s general election, with Holmes set to outline his proposalsin a speech to the Institute for Government later in the day.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/05/british-elections-at-risk-from-perfect-storm-of-threats-says-watchdog

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

RDE rushes ahead with unaccountable “Accountable Care Organisation” plans

[By total coincidence, of course, Tiverton has the only local 24 bed PFI-funded community hospital which cannot therefore be closed].

NEWS RELEASE
Tuesday 5 December 2017

“Tiverton GP practice due to join hospital trust – pioneering the way for Devon’s first primary and secondary health care integration

On 2 January 2018, Tiverton’s Castle Place Practice and its 50 members of staff*, including GPs, plan to join the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (RD&E). This new venture will be the first of its kind in Devon and will provide locally-led seamless care for the Tiverton community
This move fits with the direction of the NHS Five Year Forward View and offers better integrated working by removing organisational barriers. Castle Place is already co-located with Tiverton Community Hospital and has an established close working relationship with the Trust’s community teams so it was a pragmatic option for the practice to approach the RD&E with the proposal to explore a fully integrated model. Whilst offering the opportunity to work differently for the benefit of all the local community, it will also help address some of the challenges faced by primary care, particularly the difficulty in recruiting new GP partners and balancing time for clinical care with the demands of running a business.

Dr James Squire, GP Partner at Castle Place, explains: “This is an exciting new venture for us and one in which our patients’ best interests are central to our rationale for pursuing this change. I’d like to reassure our patients that in the short-term there will be no changes to the services we offer and in the longer-term will only provide better care.

“The ever increasing challenges and pressures are resulting in necessary changes right across the healthcare system. Thankfully, due to our focus on person-centred, continuity of care we have managed to fare some of these challenges well but we know that to maintain this for our current patients and future generations we need to explore new ways of working. There are a number of different ways GPs could adapt but it was important for us that we secured a future which was true to our core values and principles. Joining the RD&E gives us an opportunity to concentrate our efforts on leading and providing excellent clinical care in a way that’s right for our community”.

“This is a bold step for us but the whole team here is motivated to test new ways of working, not only between the practice and the hospital but also with the community services for our population, and we are really keen to share our experiences and learning for the wider benefit.”

Suzanne Tracey, RD&E Chief Executive, said: “At the RD&E we are prioritising working more closely with local health and care partners to support a move towards ‘place-based care’. This is the future of healthcare and we want to help create the conditions which enable communities to take the lead. To achieve this, we envisage working with our partners in a number of exciting and different ways and this proposal initiated by the Castle Place Practice in Tiverton is a great opportunity to put this into practice.

“Whether in primary or secondary care, all of us want to do what’s right for the person and right for a community but sometimes competing demands, targets and finances can get in the way or slow the pace of change. The partnership with Castle Place Practice is a great opportunity for us to work together with GPs to develop more proactive care which keeps people well and independent in their own communities.”

Castle Place Practice’s 15,000 registered patients, which is around half of Tiverton’s population, will see no immediate changes. Staff will continue in their existing roles, patients’ named GP will not change and access to appointments and services will continue in exactly the same way. However, in the longer term it will enable and increase the opportunities for better management of long term conditions plus improve access to care at home and in the community.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Democracy, Sleaze, Standards Committee, Transparency

Half of Parliament’s sleaze watchdog panel have themselves breached its code!

“Half of the members of a sifting panel for the appointment of a new Commons sleaze watchdog have themselves broken parliamentary rules. …

The disclosure prompted fresh concerns last night for the appointments process for the role and the principle of MPs “marking their own homework …”

Sunday Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, Sleaze, Transparency

What you can get away with in business in a greedy, unregulated system

“Palmer & Harvey paid out £70m since 2008 despite ongoing losses.

UK’s biggest tobacco distributor called in administrators and ceased deliveries on Tuesday, making 2,500 people redundant.

Palmer & Harvey directors, former directors and other shareholders extracted about £70m in cash from the grocery wholesaler over the past nine years despite ongoing losses.

The company, where 2,500 people were made redundant earlier this week and a further 900 jobs are at risk, had been owned by dozens of private individuals via a complex web of equity and loans. The company supplied 90,000 stores including 50,000 independents that are now struggling to secure stocks of tobacco and groceries at one of the busiest times of the year.

The UK’s biggest tobacco distributor called in administrators and ceased deliveries on Tuesday after hitting “challenging trading conditions” while efforts to restructure the heavily indebted business were unsuccessful.

P&H was bought by its management team in 2008 in a deal that valued the company at £345m. The deal was largely funded by debt.

P&H (2008), the wholesaler’s parent company, has paid out more than £8m a year in dividends since 2009 to its shareholders despite making losses of about £10m a year or more in all but one year, 2014.

The company’s net debt hit £48.6m in April 2016 and has been above £29m every year since 2011.

Some former managers, including the former chairmen Christopher Adams and Christopher Etherington, hold special preference shares, according to the latest list of shareholders filed at Companies House. These “B preference” shares pay out a fixed dividend twice a year.

Etherington, who stepped down as chairman earlier this year, and his wife were entitled to an estimated £300,000 in dividends last year and Adams £941,000. Half of this payment was deferred under an agreement with shareholders which pledged that it could be repaid if and when the B preference shares were ultimately redeemed.

Etherington and his wife have together held the same number of these B shares since the takeover, entitling them to about £2.5m in dividends since 2009.

In 2009, Etherington also held another form of preference share, the “A preference”, that entitled him to an annual dividend. The latest annual report indicates he no longer owns those shares. He was able to redeem them for £1 each or £500,000, before dividends owed.

Accounts for Palmer & Harvey McLane (Holdings), another parent company of P&H, also show that Etherington received a £3.44m interest-free loan from the company’s employee benefit trust with which to fund his stake in the company. This was repayable on the sale of any shares held by him.

Only a handful of shareholders in P&H (2008), most of whom are former and current staff, retained their A preference shares at the time of the last Companies House filing. But their rights to redeem the shares were protected at the time of the 2008 buyout with ring-fenced cash of £42m held in a separate company, Buildtrue, in April 2016. That company is not part of the administration process and it is understood that the majority of A preference shareholders have cashed out in the past year, receiving funds from Buildtrue.

Administrators at PricewaterhouseCoopers declined to comment.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/01/palmer-harvey-paid-out-70m-since-2008-despite-ongoing-loses

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Transparency

“As Knowle Appeal Inquiry begins, FOI asks “what cost relocation?”

From Save Our Sidmouth website today:

“The cost of EDDC’s relocation project, originally stated to be “cost neutral” has been spiralling for years (see link below*).

The following Freedom Of Information (FOI) Request was lodged on 26th November 2017, and awaits a response:

Dear East Devon District Council,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am also making this Request under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on the part of Local Authorities.

Please let me have the costs to date of the Knowle relocation project, to include all preliminary pre “moving decision” costs, and subsequent costs of all work associated with the intended reallocation, including those at The Knowle, Manstone, the intended Honiton site and Exmouth Town Hall.

I should also like to know the current and projected costs of the Exmouth Town Hall move, (including all associated costs such as moving, staff compensation and travel costs and fitting out costs), and for Honiton and costs associated with the “mothballing” of various parts of the Knowle contingent upon the intended relocation of 90 staff to Exmouth.
Yours faithfully,
R Thurlow

You can monitor developments at this link:

Costs of Knowle relocation – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Source:
As Knowle Appeal Inquiry begins, FOI asks “what cost relocation?”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

More bad news for ineffective Local Enterprise Partnerships!

The Industrial Strategy is also offering what it calls “Sector Deals”. Partnerships between Government and groups of industries and businesses focussed on specific industrial sectors such as Nuclear Power.

To unlock Government money here are the sort of things Government will require (page 210):

“Deal proposals should have a demonstrable and analytically rigorous impact on the productivity and earning power of the sector.

We expect credible analysis of the impact of any proposals to accompany each specific proposal showing expected increase in GVA, employment or increases in skilled workers, exports or specific investments (including foreign direct investment) resulting from the deal. Tangible commitments are likely to be the most convincing.

Sector Deal proposals need to be realistic and achievable. We are looking for evidence that industry commitments can be delivered and that clear governance arrangements will be set up. Any arrangements should be proportionate to the scale of ambition of the deal itself and designed to ensure commitments will endure. To be credible, deal proposals should include specific delivery plans covering each component of the proposal.”

Click to access industrial-strategy-white-paper.pdf

Demonstrable and analytically rigorous impact on productivity; credible analysis; tangible commitments; realistic and achievable proposals; clear governance: specific delivery plans …

HotSW, our LEP, is going to have to up its game or we shall lose out on each and every one of these.