Category Archives: Transparency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, EDDC, Transparency

Transparency for developer viability appraisals must be published

Owl says: EDDC makes it seem that THEY decided these appraisals should be made public – but government directives, fights with the Information Commissioner and case-law have meant that they really have no option on this!

“Confidentiality
6.28 There is a strong public interest in financial viability appraisals being made available for scrutiny when relied upon to secure planning permission and, for this reason, the council will make this information publicly available.

We consider that transparency is extremely important and the public benefit of publishing all aspects of a viability appraisal will generally outweigh any potential commercial harm to the applicant.

If an applicant feels that some or all of the information should be kept confidential, then it will be necessary for the applicant to show how disclosure of that information would cause specific harm (in this context this means that ‘it is more probable than not that some harm would be caused’ – it will not be sufficient to say it might cause harm) to a legitimate economic interest.

Applicants will need to identify to the Council what the economic interest is and how specific harm would be caused to it when the viability information is provided. This view will be taken into account, and balanced against the wider public interest in disclosure, when the council makes its decision about the publication of the viability appraisal.

Click to access 290317-combined-strategic-planning-agenda-compressed.pdf

page 107

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Irregularities at French firm manufacturing Hinkley C components

“Inspectors find safety irregularities at Creusot nuclear forge in France.

Evidence of doctored paperwork found at Areva-owned forge, which has made parts for Hinkley Point.

An international team of inspectors has found evidence of doctored paperwork and other failings at a forge in France that makes parts for nuclear power stations around the world.

The UK nuclear regulator said the safety culture at the site, which has produced forgings for British plants including Sizewell B and the planned new reactors at Hinkley Point, fell short of expectations.

Last December regulators from the UK, US, China, Finland and Canada visited the Creusot forge run by the French state-owned nuclear builder Areva, to address their concerns after the country’s regulator ASN discovered quality-control problems and falsification of records in 2014.

A report of the inspection by the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), obtained via a freedom of information request, concluded the improvement measures ordered by ASN were not yet effective.

The visit uncovered an example of an employee at the forge “amending a manufacturing record in an uncontrolled manner” as recently as September 2016, two years after similar problems were uncovered. The doctoring went undetected by Areva’s on-site quality control, Areva’s independent third-party body and inspectors from EDF.

The international inspectors also discovered the use of correctional fluid – like Tipp-Ex – at the forge’s operational control room. Correctional fluid is banned at the site, where a manager told the inspection team she regularly searched workstations for it.

Experts said the report was worrying and would damage Areva. Paul Dorfman of the Energy Institute at University College London, who obtained the document, said: “Given nuclear regulation is all about safety, this kind of language is extraordinarily damaging coming, as it does, from the UK nuclear regulator.”

Areva is already suffering serious financial problems. The company recently reported a €665m (£575m) net loss for 2016, though that is smaller than the €2bn net loss it posted in 2015.

The ONR said there was a greater quality control presence “on the shop floor” of the Creusot, and much of the top management had been replaced since ASN told it to improve. But it said the international team of inspectors “were not confident that the improvement programmes and associated remedial actions … were sufficiently resourced, prioritised and integrated in order to bring about sustained improvements in manufacturing performance and nuclear safety culture”.

The report said the UK regulator should reflect on whether EDF’s oversight of Areva was up to scratch, given it is a key supplier to the Hinkley Point C power station that EDF is building in Somerset.

The ONR told the Guardian that since the visit to Creusot it had put in place plans to ensure any forgings destined for UK reactors, including Hinkley, met UK standards.

A spokeswoman said: “Since this multinational inspection, ONR has developed its intervention plans to ensure that the licensee has in place and implements adequate management and assurance arrangements to clearly demonstrate that all components are manufactured to the required standards.

“These plans will include a series of targeted inspections and other assessments of both the licensee and the supply chain, specification of appropriate regulatory hold-points, and a targeted regulatory review at an appropriate time in the next year to assess the progress and performance of both the licensees oversight and assurance activities and the expected improvements within the supply chain.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/areva-creusot-nuclear-forge-france-hinkley-point

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, EDBF, EDDC, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

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

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

Executive Summary of longer submission:

“Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether powers to summon witnesses are adequate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to access 48556.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

“The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised to such a level that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win”

“In poor democracies, votes are bought directly. In rich ones, money is spent to secure votes. Instead of being bribed, voters are subjected to a deluge of advertising, rounds of door-knocking and incessant social media messaging. Laws in richer democracies are meant to be tightly enforced. A check on UK election spending is that contributions have to be declared correctly. That is why the decision to fine the Conservative party a record £70,000 for “numerous failures” in accurately reporting campaign spend at the 2015 general election and three by elections in 2014 is so important. It is a wrong compounded by cover-up. The Tories “unreasonably” failed to cooperate with the Electoral Commission, which acted after a Channel 4 News report.

Foolishly, David Cameron displayed not a hint of contrition, claiming he had won “fairly and squarely”. He ran a shambolic operation. It’s too early to say whether a criminal offence has been committed. Any prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is dishonesty not just non-compliance. The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised so that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win. Money buys access to shape policies. Without strict rules and harsh penalties, politicians will be tempted to win office by mortgaging the future to an investing elite.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/the-guardian-view-on-tory-election-spending-its-a-scandal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Police (local), Transparency

Elections: Campaign spending rules for dummies

Presumably, Ms Hernandez read this:

“The types of election spending

There are two types of spending by or on behalf of parties at elections. These are:

Party campaign spending on campaigning to promote the party and its policies generally.

For example, national newspaper adverts for the party, or leaflets explaining party policy.

It also includes spending on promoting candidates at elections where the party nominates a list of candidates for a region, instead of individual candidates for local areas.

Candidate spending on campaigning to promote a particular candidate or candidates in their local area.

For example, leaflets or websites that focus on one or more candidates and their views.

Different rules apply to the two types of spending.

This guidance covers party campaign spending only.

Allocating spending between the party and the candidate

If you are not immediately sure whether something is promoting the party or the candidate, you must make a fair and honest assessment of the facts.

This will help you decide how to allocate the item’s costs against the right spending limit.

Spending will usually fall into one category or the other.

You should only divide the costs of an item between different spending limits if you are sure that it is reasonable to do so.

You should not split costs if an item is produced mainly to promote a candidate, and uses the party’s name or refers to the party’s policies purely in support of that aim.

For example, if a leaflet focuses on a candidate but includes some of the party’s key policy pledges as a way of telling voters what the candidate stands for.

If you are still not sure how you should allocate an item of spending, please call or email us for advice.

Click to access to-campaign-spend-rp.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, General Election, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Comments on record fine for Conservative expenses scandal

“… Four aspects of this record fine are worth noting, especially in terms of what it means for forthcoming decisions on legal action against more Conservative MPs than makes up Theresa May’s majority in the House of Commons.

In short – it’s bad news for the Conservatives as the Electoral Commission has found repeated evidence of spending missing from constituency expense returns. That’s with the police, who have started interviewing MPs under caution, and the Crown Prosecution Service, which has received files from a dozen police forces now.

1. Conservative Party repeatedly hindered the Electoral Commission

The Conservative Party repeatedly refused to cooperate fully with the Electoral Commission investigation, requiring the Commission to go to court to get access to relevant evidence. Even after that, two further legal notices were issued in response to the party failing to provide information requested. The Electoral Commission also had to issue a legal order against a Conservative Party campaigner who “had chosen not to provide information voluntarily”.

“The Party hindered and caused delay to the investigation”, the Electoral Commission’s report concludes. This is notable different from its conclusions on other parties it has investigated recently, where cooperation was forthcoming and sustained.

2. When parties split costs, they must keep good evidence

It is a normal and legal part of election expenditure to split some costs between different legal areas. For example, a leaflet might both promote a local election candidate and a general election candidate and as a result its costs are split between the two candidate’s different expense limits.

One area where the Electoral Commission found against the Conservative Party was over its splitting of staff costs where staff were located in a constituency at the time of a by-election but were also continuing with their normal party roles as well as helping on the by-election.

“The Party could provide no record of how those proportions were determined for any of the by-elections. It did not have any written record of the formula at all, either generally or in relation to any of the three by-elections,” the Electoral Commission reports.

3. Police investigations into Conservative MPs are continuing

As the Electoral Commission’s report says, “The Commission does not have specific powers to investigate and enforce incomplete candidate returns”. The fines and police referral by the Electoral Commission are all about national record keeping and expense limit compliance, not what MPs and their agents got up to.

4. Electoral Commission’s conclusions worsen the legal risk faced by Conservative MPs

All the accommodation costs for national staff relocated to constituencies during three Parliamentary by-elections which the Electoral Commission investigated should have been included in local constituency returns even if the staff were spending some of their time on non-constituency campaigning.

That’s because otherwise they would have been based in their normal offices without accommodation being paid: “There is no reason the Commission can see as to why only an unspecified proportion of the accommodation costs for staff was included in the invoices to candidates. The Commission is satisfied that the entire accommodation costs, for staff and volunteers, were incurred for the purpose of basing individuals in Newark, Clacton and Rochester and Strood, to facilitate those individuals’ work on the respective by-election campaigns. This money would not have been spent otherwise.”

Moreover, when it comes to the Thanet South general election contest, the Electoral Commission has concluded that some of the expenses put on the party’s national expense return should have been included in the constituency return instead as they were for constituency campaigning: “The Commission is satisfied that a proportion of the costs included in the Party’s campaign spending return associated with the team based in South Thanet did not relate to Party campaign spending and should not have been included in the Party’s spending return. In particular, a proportion of the £15,641 included in the Party’s 2015 UKPGE spending return in relation to the Royal Harbour Hotel constituted candidate campaign expenses and should not have been included in the return.”

Likewise on the Conservative battlebus tour, the Electoral Commission has found that the Conservative Party wrongly claimed that all its costs were national election expenditure because in reality the battlebus operation often promoted constituency candidates and so a proportion of its costs should have counted against their limits.

Because the Electoral Commission doesn’t have direct jurisdiction over constituency returns, the question therefore of under-declaring costs on constituency returns has not been followed up by them in this report. That, however, is a matter for the ongoing police investigations. For example, on the question of the Conservative battlebus, the Electoral Commission concludes: “The Commission has not sought to identify the extent to which any affected candidates may have underreported their campaign spending, which is an RPA [Representation of the People Act] matter and therefore a matter for the police.”

In other words, the Electoral Commission has found a number of issues which directly mean that constituency expense returns were wrong. They haven’t issued fines or taken other action over them as those matters are with the police.”

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148784/conserative-party-electoral-commission-fine/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, NPPF, Paul Diviani, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency

“New Cranbrook” and creeping unitisation worry Greater Exeter councillors

Owl says: Read with the post below Owl thinks there will be more than one “New Cranbrook” in the Greater Exeter area!

“Consultation events held in Devon this week shed light on the creation of a major strategic blueprint, which could lead to new settlements on the same scale as Cranbrook.

Mid Devon, East Devon, Teignbridge and Exeter City Council, in partnership with Devon County Council, are teaming up to create a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) which focuses on the creation of jobs and housing until 2040.

Hundreds visited Exeter’s Guildhall today to see early Greater Exeter plans between 2pm and 8pm. Similar consultations were held at Phoenix House, Tiverton yesterday and at Mackarness Hall, Honiton on Wednesday, March 8.

Andrew Robbins, city development manager for Exeter, said: “We need to provide more houses for the population and more jobs. What we’re looking to do is plan for the next 20 years, with Exeter City Council working with its neighbours because we see the influence of Exeter outside its boundaries. We’re looking at the best places for new housing and the best places for new jobs.

“For example, the new settlement at Cranbrook has been developed in recent years. One of the things we’re thinking of is ‘do we need another settlement outside of the city.'”

“What we want to do is get people involved in the process at what we call the issues stage. This is the absolute beginning of the process and its asking people for their ideas for how they see the region developing, before consulting on a draft plan at the beginning of 2018.”

Cllr Jeremy Christophers, Leader of Teignbridge said: “The creation of a strategic plan across a wider geography responds to how people actually live their lives. Combining housing options with job opportunities and providing the proper transport will support our ambition for local people to live the lives they wish for. As councils, we need to work together to deliver better results for the future – clearly, this is the way forward.”

Cllr Paul Diviani, Leader of East Devon said: “It has been clear for some time that there was a significant gap left with the demise of the Devon Structure Plan and without wishing to re-invent the wheel, we should be establishing a strategic plan for our Greater Exeter area which has input from Exeter, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and ourselves, alongside the County Council. We are the epi-centre of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership and we need to ensure we have a central, aligned, significant role to play as we take our well-established partnership forward.”

Cllr Pete Edwards, Leader of Exeter City said: “Every weekday 37,000 people commute into Exeter and 11,000 people head out of Exeter. These volumes are second only to Cambridge and it is imperative that we address housing, transport and infrastructure in a joined-up way to respond to this reality.”

Cllr Clive Eginton, Leader of Mid Devon, said: “This is an excellent opportunity to reflect on how our residents and businesses live their lives across council administrative boundaries and to start embedding our shared aspiration for a successful future in plans for the Greater Exeter area.”

Cllr John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council, said: “The emerging relationship between the four local authorities in preparing a single Strategic Plan for the area is a very positive step and will help the planning system to work efficiently to boost the supply of housing and growth required. We are pleased and well-placed to be part of this collaborative way of working, which will improve and streamline our planning system.”

However the plans have raised fears that councils are “sleepwalking” into becoming unitary authorities. Liberal Councillor Jenny Roach who represents Silverton expressed fears that Mid Devon District Council would be ceding powers.

She said: “We’re looking like we could be ceding power to this planning partnership, and I know people will shake their heads and say no, but there are several points which worry me.

“Exeter needs land and you can imagine where I sit in my ward, Exeter City Council could be looking at developing the swathe of land that is between Silverton and Exeter and similarly between Thorverton and Newton St Cyres. If you look at the East Devon side there are huge estates marching across that land, so this worries me.

“It worries me that it’s being done by degree and almost by stealth. When we went to the public to talk about the sort of governance the district wanted, they didn’t like the cabinet, but unfortunately we didn’t get the 3000 signatures we needed in that period of time.

“There are a tremendous amount of people who were not happy with the governance of this authority as it is now, they don’t like the cabinet system, and it is the cabinet system that is sleepwalking us into a unitary authority. I’ve seen this happen before and I would really like to know that the very least we would do is have a state of the district debate on this Greater Strategic Exeter Plan.”

An online consultation form can be found at http://www.gesp.org.uk/issues”

http://www.devonlive.com/greater-exeter-plan-could-lead-to-a-new-cranbrook/story-30209261-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Neighbourhood Plans, Planning System, Scrutiny, Transparency

When planning goes horribly wrong

“The family of a businessman who helped shape the future of development in South Devon are set to make hundreds of thousands of pounds after a plot they bought at a knock-down price was designated for housing. Paignton residents have expressed concerns over the future of the land in Waterside Road.

They are unhappy that the space, which backs onto Dartmouth Road, has been cleared of trees and identified for housing in the latest draft of the Brixham Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan.

The land is owned by the family of the neighbourhood plan forum’s vice-chair Adam Billings and was bought at auction from Torbay Council as amenity land in 2014.

Neighbours say the plot would have generated far more money for the taxpayer if it has been sold with planning permission rather being designed to be a green space.

Mr Billings did not wish to comment on the plans for the land but hit out at ‘factually incorrect claims’ that had been made about his actions. He declared an interest in the land during the neighbourhood plan process. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/residents-concern-over-potential-development-of-green-land/story-30203442-detail/story.html

Recall EDDC’s senior planner recently wrote to councillors suggesting that if they had any development land hidden away now was the time to bring it forward!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny, Transparency

Will Swire do the right thing and fire his wife? Or will she do the right thing and resign?

“MPs will be banned from hiring relatives using public money after the next general election, according to new rules issued by the expenses watchdog.

The new rules, released on Wednesday, state that no new “connected parties” can be employed in politicians’ offices. Members of MPs’ families who are already employed will be allowed to continue to work in their offices, despite widespread criticism of the practice.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it would not force MPs to sack individuals who are currently working for them.

The rule change was released following a comprehensive consultation of MPs’ business costs and expenses. It comes amid the scandal in France over allegations that presidential candidate François Fillon paid his wife hundreds of thousands of pounds for little work.

Ipsa’s senior officials have argued that the employment of “connected parties” is out of step with modern employment practice, which requires fair and open recruitment to encourage diversity in the workplace.

Pay for MPs’ relatives costs the public purse around £4m a year, and around 150 are currently on the payroll.

Employing relatives is one of the most controversial practices still allowed under the changed expenses rules….

… MPs will be banned from hiring relatives using public money after the next general election, according to new rules issued by the expenses watchdog.

The new rules, released on Wednesday, state that no new “connected parties” can be employed in politicians’ offices. Members of MPs’ families who are already employed will be allowed to continue to work in their offices, despite widespread criticism of the practice.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it would not force MPs to sack individuals who are currently working for them.

The rule change was released following a comprehensive consultation of MPs’ business costs and expenses. It comes amid the scandal in France over allegations that presidential candidate François Fillon paid his wife hundreds of thousands of pounds for little work.

Ipsa’s senior officials have argued that the employment of “connected parties” is out of step with modern employment practice, which requires fair and open recruitment to encourage diversity in the workplace.

Pay for MPs’ relatives costs the public purse around £4m a year, and around 150 are currently on the payroll.

Employing relatives is one of the most controversial practices still allowed under the changed expenses rules.

In 2009, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended a ban on the practice as it was “not consistent with modern employment practice designed to ensure fairness in recruitment, management of staff and remuneration”.

Proposals to ban family members from working for MPs following parliament’s expenses scandal were dropped by Ipsa after a backlash from politicians – with the caveat that they were restricted to putting just one family member on the payroll.

MPs who have employed family members include the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, and the Conservative MP Johnny Mercer, who employs his wife, Felicity.

Many MPs say their relatives are willing to work much longer hours than they could ask of other staff. They believe the practice helps them maintain a family life amid the long hours and pressures of Westminster.

A report by the watchdog earlier this year revealed that the pay of connected parties is on average £5,600 higher than that of other staff, and going up at twice the rate of other staff in parliament. At the time of the last general election, relatives’ average salary was £31,350 a year.

Ipsa has said controls to prevent misuse of public funds in payments to family members are “limited”. There is no central time-keeping system for MPs’ staff, and MPs are responsible for monitoring and paying overtime.

Ipsa said it was “difficult to discover whether MPs are breaking the rules” and said there was a risk MPs could break the rules or “act fraudulently without detection”.

It added: ‘The quality of our data records and the absence of controls to prevent false declarations of connected party status means that there is a high risk that any instance of an undeclared or inaccurate status will not be identified.’

Between 2010 and 2015 the cost of employing MPs’ relatives was about £21m.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/15/mps-to-be-banned-from-using-public-money-to-hire-relatives-expenses

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Police (local), Transparency, Voting

Election expenses scandal – Devon and Cornwall info passed to Crown Prosecution Service

“Twelve police forces have passed files to the Crown Prosecution Service over allegations that Conservatives broke campaign spending laws at the last election, after a 10-month investigation by police forces across the country.

The revelation is likely to increase concern in Downing Street and the Conservative party about the seriousness of the investigations, which could affect several sitting MPs and even lead to election results being declared void if there are prosecutions.

The CPS said it had been passed files from Avon and Somerset; Derbyshire; Cumbria; Devon and Cornwall; Gloucestershire; Greater Manchester; Lincolnshire; the Metropolitan police; Northamptonshire; Nottinghamshire; West Yorkshire; and Staffordshire police.
Continue reading →

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Police (local), Transparency, Voting

Election expenses scandal – update

“Conservative MPs embroiled in an election expenses row have accused party officials of trying to dodge blame.

Two dozen Tories are understood to be under police investigation over claims they overspent on their local campaigns during the 2015 general election in which spending limits are tight.

Karl McCartney, MP for Lincoln and one of those under investigation, wrote a bombshell email to the party chairman attacking the party’s handling of the controversy linked to its election “battle bus”.

In it, he wrote: “We didn’t create this mess, the clever dicks at CCHQ (Conservative Campaign Headquarters) did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media.”

Sky News can reveal:

:: An email sent to 30 Tory MPs claims the party has withheld a draft report it has already received from the Electoral Commission into the issue.

:: A second email to the party chairman claims Conservative Central Office was to blame for the expenses “mess”.

:: The MPs held a showdown meeting with party chairman Patrick McLoughlin on Tuesday afternoon to air their concerns.

:: MPs implicated in the row said they felt “scared” about the outcome of the investigations and believe Downing St is worried.

The spending row centres on the Tories’ use of an election battle bus to campaign in key seats, and whether spending on hotels and campaign material were incorrectly registered as national spending, which has much higher limits than local spending.

Meanwhile, Kent Police refused to confirm reports Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, who defeated ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage in Thanet South, was questioned under caution last Friday over his expenses.

If Conservatives are found to have committed any offence, their political opponents could ask for the contests to be rerun.

Mr McCartney, a justice of the peace who was elected in 2010 and fought off a challenge from Labour in 2015, is said to be acting as an informal “shop steward” to the group of mainly newly-elected MPs implicated.

He wrote to colleagues last week saying Conservative Central Office (CCHQ) had received a draft report from the Electoral Commission, which has been investigating party spending for a year.

Mr McCartney said this information came from a Conservative-party appointed solicitor who is acting for the group, but claimed the contents of the report had not been shared with MPs.

However, a Conservative source denied officials had received the report.

Mr McCartney wrote: “I have made my disquiet and disbelief at this course of action pretty clear in a blunt email to the party chairman and the whips office overnight.”

In that email, also seen by Sky News, and addressed to Mr McLoughlin who is in the cabinet, he wrote that his colleagues “feel completely cast adrift by CCHQ/whips/the parliamentary party and left to fend for themselves”.

He added: “At what stage do you think you (the Party) might inform us that another media s***storm is coming? We didn’t create this mess, the clever dicks at CCHQ did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media much.

“The initial cock-ups, ‘strategy’ and ineptitude with regard to this issue that has so negatively impacted our: lives, standing in our communities, standing amongst colleagues, families and our regard for particular parts of the Party centrally, and were all of CCHQ’s making…need to stop.

“We are the ones who are now (and since the beginning as individuals have been) in the media spotlight and it might have been a little more reassuring and collegiate if the powers that be in our party perhaps tried to be a little bit more supportive and less interested in covering their own backsides.”

Mr McCartney asks why MPs were not warned about the Electoral Commission report, expected to be made public in the coming weeks.

He said none of the MPs have been questioned by the Commission and asked: “Who else has had a copy? And what are the ramifications of its current version and what if it accepts your feedback and rewrites whole swathes of their draft?”

He asked the party chairman for guidance on dealing with media inquiries, saying: “We do need a press release for national and local media interest. I would rather sing from the same hymn sheet.”

On his website, he wrote: “The Conservative Party advised us that the so-called campaign ‘battle buses’ were, as at previous general elections and in keeping with the practice of both the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats, a national campaign expense.

“This meant that they were not to be declared in our own election expenses.”

Another of the MPs in the group, elected in 2015, and under police investigation said they firmly believed the spending was correctly registered.

The MP said: “People are scared, this has been hanging over us for more than a year. I absolutely believe it was legitimately national spending in my case.

“Our solicitor which they have paid for agrees that the law is what it is and we haven’t broken it. But I think CCHQ have been quite complacent about how far it would go. No 10 is now very concerned about it.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.”

http://news.sky.com/story/expenses-scandal-tory-mps-say-party-officials-covering-own-backsides-10801909

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Police (local), Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Election expenses scandal: some Tory MPs in panic mode

Our current Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez, was election agent for MP Kevin Foster [Torbay] who took the seat from Lib Dems with a majority of 3,286 at the last election with just over 40% of voters choosing him.

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2017-01-04/police-chief-interviewed-over-election-expenses-scandal/

“A Conservative MP has been interviewed under caution as part of an ongoing police inquiry into whether the party overspent in its campaign for South Thanet in the 2015 general election, when they were up against Nigel Farage.

Craig Mackinlay, the MP who won the seat against the former Ukip leader, is said to have spent about six hours speaking to police about their investigation, which has been going on for about a year.

Asked about the interview, a Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.” Mackinlay did not reply to a request for comment.

There is growing panic in the Conservative party about the scale of police probes into election spending, which could affect dozens of MPs. A separate investigation by the Electoral Commission into whether the national party broke election spending limits is also under way and expected to come to a head within weeks.

The allegations, first uncovered by Channel 4 News, are that spending in marginal seats on a battlebus tour and teams of party officials was wrongly recorded as national, rather than local spending.

The penalties for wrongly declaring local elections are steep, with possible criminal charges for MPs and their election agents, and results can be declared void.

It is understood police could meet the Crown Prosecution Service as early as 21 March to discuss bringing a possible charge in relation to South Thanet, where Farage was narrowly beaten by Mackinley.

Nigel Farage says he would stand for election again in South Thanet
Farage, the former Ukip leader, has already said he may be interested in rerunning in the Kent coastal seat if it there were to be a prosecution and byelection.

Kent police said: “The investigation into this complex matter is ongoing and officers continue to follow lines of enquiry. Therefore it would not be appropriate to comment further.

“Officers from Kent police continue to work with the Electoral Commission as the investigation continues.”

Separately, a group of Conservative MPs under investigation over their election expenses are growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of support from the party’s headquarters.

One has sent an email to Tory HQ accusing the party of keeping secret a draft of the Electoral Commission report from MPs whose local spending returns are under investigation.

In an email seen by Sky News, Karl McCartney, a Tory MP [Lincoln] under investigation who is helping other MPs, accused party officials of trying to save themselves rather than help those who were elected.

He wrote that his colleagues “feel completely cast adrift by CCHQ/whips/the parliamentary party and left to fend for themselves”.

He added: “At what stage do you think you (the party) might inform us that another media s***storm is coming? We didn’t create this mess, the clever dicks at CCHQ did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media much.”

“The initial cock-ups, ‘strategy’ and ineptitude with regard to this issue that has so negatively impacted our: lives, standing in our communities, standing amongst colleagues, families and our regard for particular parts of the party centrally, and were all of CCHQ’s making … need to stop.

“We are the ones who are now (and since the beginning as individuals have been) in the media spotlight and it might have been a little more reassuring and collegiate if the powers that be in our party perhaps tried to be a little bit more supportive and less interested in covering their own backsides.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/14/conservative-mp-craig-mackinlay-interviewed-under-caution-over-election-spending

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Transparency

Crackdown on MPs employing family – will it affect Mrs Swire (salary £30,000+)?

Mr Swire has employed Mrs Swire for many years as a “Senior Researcher” and has said in the past that she helps with his press releases and website.

“MPs are to be hit with tougher restrictions on employing their wives and children amid concern of a François Fillon-style scandal in Britain, The Sunday Telegraph understands.

New stricter rules on employing relatives from the taxpayers’ purse are expected to be announced this month in the biggest expenses shake-up in six years. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), created after The Telegraph’s expenses investigation, will start contacting MPs from tomorrow.

Politicians are likely to be urged to advertise all available jobs, interview candidates not linked to them and justify any hiring of relatives to voters.

There remains some public concern about MPs’ employment of ‘connected parties’ … and any financial support provided to MPs’ families, such as by paying for their related travel and accommodation.

However, it is understood that copying a blanket ban on employing family members currently in place in the Scottish Parliament has been rejected.
Sources said the scandal in France over allegations that Mr Fillon, the presidential candidate, paid his wife hundreds of thousands of pounds for little work is being borne in mind.

The move comes as the publication of new expenses records revealed nine MPs claimed for subscriptions to the online video streaming service Amazon Prime. Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters and Jeremy Clarkson’s The Grand Tour are among thousands of shows available on the service, which costs £79 a year.

Some MPs involved said they had made the claims by mistake or were caught in a “subscription trap” after taking out a free trial.

Conclusions from a consultation into Ipsa’s rules – the first comprehensive review since 2011 – will be published as early as this week. The consultation covered a wide array of topics, from how MPs claim expenses for travel and accommodation to diversity among their employees.

The body is expected to approve a significant pay rise for MPs’ staff for the first time in years after a review of current caps. Staff have received only a 
1 per cent annual pay rise on average.

But it is changes to rules around MPs employing their wives and partners that are likely to generate headlines. Last March it was found that 139 relatives or people with a “close business connection” were working for Britain’s 650 MPs.

In total they are paid around £4.5 million a year, which has recently made up around 5 per cent of total staffing expenditure. Ipsa warned in its consultation that “controls to prevent misuse of funding on employing connected parties were limited”.

It also said staff with links to MPs had “salaries significantly higher than the average [employee] across all MPs’ staff”, although only because they tended to work in more senior roles. “There remains some public concern about MPs’ employment of ‘connected parties’ … and any financial support provided to MPs’ families, such as by paying for their related travel and accommodation,” the consultation said.

This newspaper has learnt that the watchdog is planning to do more to reassure the public the system of employing spouses and relatives is not being abused. A source said the focus would be on MPs “providing a justification for what they are doing” and “having a recruitment process that is more like the rest of the world”.”

Source: Daily Telegraph via news feed

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Economy, Exmouth, Golden Quadrangle LEP, Golden Triangle LEP, Hinkley C, Inequality, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Enterprise Partnership, Regeneration, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Big Society” a big failure says Parliamentary Committee: £1 billion plus wasted

Owl says: Vanity projects – imagine how much we could spend on necessities if they were all abandoned! Hinkley C, HS2, the Big Society, EDDC relocation, Exmouth “regeneration”, Devon and Somerset devolution …!

“A publicly funded £1bn “big society” project set up by former prime minister David Cameron to restore values of responsibility and discipline among young people has been criticised by MPs for lax spending controls and poor management.

The Commons public accounts committee (PAC) said the National Citizen Service (NCS) trust lacked appropriate governance arrangements, could not justify its high costs, and was unable to prove whether its courses had any long-term impact on youngsters.

Meg Hillier MP, chair of the PAC, said: “We urge the trust and central government to review fundamentally the way NCS is delivered and its benefits measured before more public money is committed in the programme’s next commissioning round.”

MPs said that the scheme – which has received £600m in government funding since 2011 and stands to get another £900m investment over the next two years – should be “fundamentally reviewed” by ministers.

Hillier said although there was some evidence the scheme had a short-term positive impact on participants this did not in itself justify the high level of public spending on the programme, nor demonstrate that it would deliver the proposed benefits.

The PAC report criticised the trust for refusing to disclose directors’ salaries, and accused it of a “lack of discipline” after failing to recover £10m paid to providers for unfilled places. It concluded that it was unclear whether the trust management had the necessary skills and experience to run the scheme. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/14/national-citizens-service-justify-costs–commons-committee-cameron

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Exeter City Council, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Information Commissioner v Exeter City Council re business case adjourned

This case has direct ramifications for Exmouth regeneration and Knowle relocation.

“… The lengthy hearing, held independently of the government at Exeter Magistrates’ Court from 10am, was attended by members of the public, city councillor’s and members of the council. It continued into the afternoon with closed sessions which discussed the information in question.

The Information Tribunal was adjourned pending further information to an, as yet, unspecified date after the Judge heard in-part from both sides.

The appellant, Exeter City Council, is battling against the Information Commissioner’s decision that it should publish the details for the business case for the £27 million leisure complex development on the site of the current Bus and Coach Station.

Joined Party, Exeter resident Peter Cleasby, had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the details last year, so it could be open to wider scrutiny before contracts were signed. The Council refused on grounds of commercial confidentiality, and Mr Cleasby complained about its refusal to the Information Commissioner.

The Commissioner ordered key information in the business case to be made public, but the council appealed against the Commissioner’s decision. Peter Cleasby added: “Wider scrutiny and challenge of the business case assumptions is vital.”

Before the hearing, a city council spokesman said: “The Council will make its case before the Tribunal. It would be inappropriate to comment further ahead of the hearing.” The council say they are unlikely to comment until a decision is made in the coming weeks.

The development of St Sidwell’s Point has been put on hold because the council has not appointed a contractor. An Extraordinary Meeting of the Council, to direct questions about the delay, will be held at Exeter Guildhall at 6pm on Tuesday. March 21 – after being called in by political opposition.”

http://www.devonlive.com/tribunal-over-exeter-st-sidwell-s-point-information-request-adjourned/story-30200639-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Tim Jones, Transparency

Comments

3 Comments

Devolution “off the table” and “the money has all been spent”!

Owl says: where HAS all the money gone, Mr Hindley?

And why are the “same old” people who spent it all but failed to give us a devolution package we could all sign up to now trying to capture a new group to keep future money in the “same old” hands?

“South West business must pull together to unlock regional prosperity, a regional business leader has warned.

Steve Hindley, Chairman of Heart of the South West LEP, said that the only way to unlock government cash is to present a unified front. And he revealed that a devolution deal for Devon and Somerset is effectively off the table for now.

He was speaking about his wishes for the region at the Devon and Cornwall Business Council spring conference held at Flybe Training Centre at Exeter Airport today.

He said: “What I would like to see doesn’t involve government. I would like to see more co-ordination in the South West with the industrial strategy for our aeronautical, marine, food, nuclear, data analytics and creative sectors.

“We have got an enthusiastic bunch of business people that are leading in the agenda and that’s the way the Government begins to take notice of the South West.

“It is my wish that we get our act together before we go to government.”

Mr Hindley was joined by Tim Jones, Chairman of DCBC, Karine Hassan, Chief Executive of Exeter City Council, Mark Duddridge, Chairman of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and Louise Pasterfield, Managing Director of Sponge UK for a panel discussion of the major issues that businesses currently face including productivity, skills, innovation and devolution.

The region is hindered by a lack of investment in skills and infrastructure but it has the power to take responsibility for it own prosperity. Mr Hindley said the way to drive transformation in the region was to meet the aims of the Industrial Growth Strategy, set out by Theresa May in January.

“That is what is on the table at the moment,” he said. Devolution as a way of taking control of cash from Westminster is currently off the agenda. He said: “I am disappointed that in Devon and Somerset we have not moved forward on devolution. That was a missed opportunity that has gone now. The money has all been spent.

“With 19 authorities involved it was always going to be very difficult.”

But Mr Jones insisted that areas like the Northern Powerhouse, that had secured a devolution deal, had been singled out for investment in the spring budget.

And Mr Duddridge said that Cornwall’s own devolution deal had brought great advantages despite being much maligned by the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government, Sajid Javid. The key is to take to government a well presented business case to attract funding, said Mr Hassan. Exeter is at the forefront of pioneering environmental science and deserves investment in innovation and skills. And in Plymouth, 40% of workers at digital firm Sponge UK are Plymouth University graduates.

Mr Hassan said: “Right across the country, significant investment is going to other areas not to major institutions like our universities. “If we don’t get our act together, all the other institutions are going to leave us behind.

“We have got to work out what we are going to go to government with to unlock funding to make this place sing like the rest of the country.”

The message set out by the conference is echoed by the Western Morning News’ #BackTheSouthWest campaign. It has culminated in the Growth Charter, presented to government, that sets out a series of pledges by the business community to improve the fortunes of the region alongside a series of asks from government to support regional growth.”

http://www.devonlive.com/why-prosperity-in-devon-and-cornwall-can-t-wait-for-government-hand-outs/story-30194941-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Exeter court case with ramifications for EDDC HQ relocation

“Exeter City Council’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that it should publish details of the business case for the controversial St Sidwell’s Point leisure complex on the current bus station site will be heard by an Information Tribunal.

Exeter resident Peter Cleasby used the Freedom of Information Act to ask the Council to release details of the business case for the development so that the assumptions contained in it – particularly about the running costs – could be open to wider scrutiny before contracts were signed.

The Council refused on grounds of commercial confidentiality, and Mr Cleasby complained about its refusal to the Information Commissioner.

The Commissioner ordered key information in the business case to be made public, but the Council appealed against the Commissioner’s decision.

The matter will now be decided by a judge-led Information Tribunal, in a public hearing at Exeter Magistrates Court on Monday 13 March starting at 10am.

Peter Cleasby said:”Exeter City Council is set to spend £26 million of public money – a sum that may well increase – on the leisure complex. It claims that the complex will make a profit, but only a handful of officers and councillors know what assumptions are made in support of these claims. If the Council get this wrong, the city could be saddled with an expensive liability for years to come, so wider scrutiny and challenge of the business case assumptions is vital.”

A City Council spokesman said: “The Council will make its case before the Tribunal. It would be inappropriate to comment further ahead of the hearing.”

The pool project was recently put on hold because the council had not appointed a contractor, despite having already spent a significant proportion of the £32.5million combined pot for St Sidwell’s Point and the bus station.”

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/exeter-city-council-taken-to-court-after-refusing-to-release-leisure-complex-details/story-30186062-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Election expenses scandal worsens thanks to whistleblowers

“Over the past year, a Channel 4 News investigations team has unearthed compelling evidence that the Conservative Party may have broken election laws to fight three by-elections in 2014 and win power in the 2015 General Election.

The Battlebus 2015 campaign sent a fleet of coaches filled with Conservative activists into 29 marginal seats in the final weeks of the 2015 General Election – to persuade voters on the doorstep.

The whole Battlebus campaign is now under investigation – after allegations that Conservative candidates may have broken election law by failing to declare the costs on their local spending returns.

The Party has repeatedly said the spending on the bus tour should have been declared nationally not locally.

But two Tory whistleblowers have spoken to Channel 4 News and cast doubt on that claim.

They say the party is “lying” about what happened on the Battlebus – and is now engaged in a “cover-up”.

Battlebus activists

Gregg and Louise Kinsell volunteered for the Conservatives in the final few days of the “Battlebus 2015” campaign in the South West, working in four key seats for the party.

Louise says that: “We worked for the local candidates and MPs to ensure that they won their seat and we were sent wherever they thought we would help.”

The Conservatives insist the Battlebus was a national event, with volunteers only promoting the party and not specific local candidates. As such the Battlebus was only declared in the Party’s national campaign expenses.

Last year, David Cameron said: “Lots of political parties have these bus tours – you know buses that go round different constituencies and this is a national expense.”

But the Kinsells say they were tasked with promoting local candidates,
including being given local briefing papers and seat-specific scripts, being furnished with specific voter data and distributing local leaflets.

Gregg said: “If people are saying, and the MPs concerned in these areas are saying it was part of a greater expense nationally for the Conservatives, that is a lie and an obvious falsehood. In that case I feel especially motivated to go to the police and go to the Electoral Commission.”

“So they are telling lies about what we did – and we duped people on the doors, it feels like cheating.”

All four seats visited by the Kinsells on the Battlebus tour were won for the Tories and the party took 14 seats in the South West in total, wiping out their Liberal Democrats coalition partners from the region.

Louise Kinsell said, “We went down and worked for individual candidates who then won their seat. If they hadn’t won their seat, the Conservatives may not have won the election.”

Police investigation

The Battlebus tour is currently under investigation. Under election laws, any costs incurred to promote a candidate, must be declared on local candidate spending returns. It’s a criminal offence for the candidate and agent to knowingly make a false declaration.

Channel 4 News has previously revealed that hundreds of thousands of pounds in Conservative campaign spending may not have been properly declared.

And the Kinsells have revealed more examples of what they believe are questionable campaign spending.

The Battlebus group stayed at the Jury’s Inn in Plymouth. Channel 4 News has seen a hotel bill for 29 rooms at the Jury’s Inn totalling £2,520. But that hotel does not appear to have been declared in the national expenses.

The Battlebus tour was then accommodated at the Premier Inn and Travelodge in Hayle, Cornwall. Again, these hotels do not appear to have been accounted for in the Conservative national returns.

The Conservative Party has previously stated that the failure to declare the hotels used on the Battlebus campaign as an “administrative error”.

In the nine seats visited by the Battlebus in the South West, the Conservatives candidates declared that they had spent below the legal limit, as governed by electoral law.

However, Channel 4 News has calculated the cost of the buses, hotels, and staff for the Battlebus tour in the region amounts to £2,460 for each seat visited. If the activists took part in local campaigning, this cost should have been declared on local spending returns.

The Kinsells say there is now a “code of silence” amongst Party activists about what took place on the Battlebus tour.

“It has shocked me that they have been this arrogant and think they can get away with it.”

The Kinsells say they feel betrayed by the Conservatives. “We were on the bus. We know what happened. We know what we were doing. And they know what we were doing.

Gregg Kinsell said: “I feel like there’s been a betrayal. We were unwitting participants in a huge betrayal. That’s how I feel.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.”

None of the candidates responsed to requests for comment.

https://www.channel4.com/news/tory-whistleblowers-election-expenses-conservative-party-battlebus