Category Archives: Transparency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, DCC, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ fight at DCC for local hospital beds – winner and losers

The observations of a member of the public (Chris Wakefield) at the meeting. Note: whoever voted for Councillors Brook (Chudleigh) and Diviani (Honiton St Pauls) at the last election – hang your heads in shame.

Brook tried to stop Claire Wright’s tough motion (which was carried) because she wrote it down!!!!! Diviani, also Leader of East Devon District Council) said and did NOTHING to help Honiton hospital to stay open. Others who voted against are named below.

The vote (which should have been unanimous) went 7-5 in Claire Wright’s favour. Those voting against were: Jerry Brook (Chudleigh), Paul Diviani (Honiton St Pauls) Chris Clarance (Teign Estuary), Debo Sellis (Tavistock)and Rufus Gilbert ( Salcombe).

“Having watched the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee webcast it is easy to see why we are where we are with this. Here’s a selective personal account for anyone who missed the live action.

CCG’s team was out in force, with a front bench of four, bolstered by some invisible ‘friends’ mentioned by the chairman but never seen by us, to urge them on.

They kicked off with a slightly nervy CCG presentation mainly to tell us why the consultation was such a remarkable achievement – an award-winning consultation – endorsed by all sorts of benchmarks, quality marks, kite marks, hall marks and all; and it is hard to fault it against the measures offered to us. The only down side is that everyone else thought it was a ready-made decision seeking a post-facto endorsement. Neil Parish MP called it a ‘sham’ and few would disagree with him.

The councillors on the committee, in the main, then laid into them, and voiced what the feeling was among their constituents, which was justifiably murderous, and which prompted CCG’s Rob Sainsbury to launch into vigorous technicalities, emphasising his case with staccato hand movements, and showing the clear strain of casting his carefully modeled pearls before such porcine auditors.

There were questions, to which most answers were inadequate, and others not given. There was talk, (threats possibly) of FOI demands, which is alarming given that all these people are in public employment, and I have never worked out why any information is not forthcoming simply for the asking.

Anyway, a few highlight will cheer us up – first the pleasure of watching old hands in action – Cllrs Westlake and Greenslade in particular, the latter quite chirpy considering the doleful nature of the business at hand, leaping on Simon Kerr’s foot-in-mouth remark about the complete absence of responsive social care in Axminster, and brazenly cutting to the chase, asking how much the Success Regime was costing us. (An interim cost was £2.6m I thought I heard, but I could be wrong – that seems like an awful lot of cutter for a man-and-a-dog outfit like Carnell Farrer).

No one in fact was inclined to give wholehearted support to the CCG in their plans; there were a few limp equivocations – cllr Diviani told us (once he could get his voice going – the key is turned but the engine always takes ages to actually start) that he’d been in hospital and it was brilliant, and one or two others wrung their hands over the clear lack of social care provision, while not condemning the process that brought us the crisis.

Claire was invited to make her proposal for the committee to vote on, whereupon the snappily dressed cllr. Brook, clearly confused that Claire has prepared for the meeting by writing down her proposal, suggested that people who wrote things down were clearly trying to subvert the democratic process. (Tories have traditionally held that teaching the working classes to read and write had been a mistake – and that tendency has played into our education system ever since 1872, which is why legislation has studiously avoided any education in matters of politics, in order to forestall indiscipline in the ranks. There is a cracking story on that topic, but I’ll skip it for the moment).

Cllr Westlake, from the chair, reminding cllr Brook that writing was OK, proposed that Claire’s proposal was put to the vote. Result 7 – 5 in favour. That’s OK, good even – but what is there to vote against one wonders, the proposal is merely to make sure we do the utmost to get things right before trashing the existing local health infrastructure. And when you hear ‘We are very cautiously optimistic that the new model of care can be implemented’ from the CCG, then caution seems eminently sensible.

Just watched the budget in the commons. Must pack this in – politics is infuriating enough without hours of watching it on the telly as well. Except that it is primary data, and bypasses the media, so it does help us to see what actually is going on.

It will be interesting to see how much of the £1bn for top performing STP planners comes Devon’s way. Probably in proportion to the extent of fawning the local MPs can summon for Mrs May’s other tricky issues on the government’s agenda. Well done Claire.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/hospital_bed_cuts_to_be_referred_to_secretary_of_state_for_health_unless_ra

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Business Rates, Corruption, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

Councils to administer a discretionary business rate relief fund

“Local authorities are to share a £300m pot for discretionary business rate reliefs to help firms facing higher bills due to next month’s revaluation of the levy, chancellor Philip Hammond has announced.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/03/councils-share-ps300m-business-rate-relief-fund

Question: How will this be monitored to ensure that officers and councillors do not favour their mates?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

How to make electoral registration easier (if your electoral registration officer plays fair)

Owl is not convinced that this government or even EDDC – wants a more inclusive electoral register – students were mostly against Brexit and they often vote for minority parties.

It will be interesting to see what efforts our electoral registration officer (CEO Mark Williams) will make to ensure that East Devon registers more voters – after the fiasco at the last election, where frantic efforts had to be made at the last-minute to find 6,000 voters who had dropped off the electoral roll due to changes in procedures authorised by Mr Williams but which very much displeased the parliamentary committee to which he was summoned to explain his unilateral changes.

“Before the Lords voted against Brexit yesterday in the House of Lords, the government was defeated on another important democratic issue: voter registration. This passed largely without comment by the media (and went unmentioned in the BBC’s Yesterday in Parliament, for example). It is unsurprising that voter registration rarely receives the same level of coverage as Brexit, but it is nonetheless a vital issue.

Up to 8 million people were thought to be missing from the electoral register in 2015. Research shows that citizens were turned away from the polls at the Brexit referendum because they were not registered to vote.

Registration levels have been declining for a long time. It was long forecasted that this decline would continue under individual electoral registration (IER). The introduction of online voter registration and voter outreach work from organisations such as Bite the Ballot did much to address this in the run-up to the EU referendum. But now the referendum is past, we should expect the completeness of the register to slide away again.

One group that research predicted would be hardest hit was students. Under the old household electoral registration system, they were automatically enrolled by their university administration. Although data on the number who have fallen off the register is hard to track, we know that young people were especially affected by IER. It was therefore a mistake that the Electoral Administration Act of 2013 did not provide for a suitable student registration to be put in place when the old system of household registration was abolished.

Yesterday, an amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill was introduced to require universities to offer students the opportunity to register to vote at the point of enrolment or re-registration as a student at their university. A successful example of a scheme like this was piloted at Sheffield University, where student registration rates soared to a quoted 76% of its eligible students registered, compared to 13% at similar-sized institutions. The amendment offers an opportunity to save significant funds too. The head of registration services at Sheffield Council has confirmed that the cost of registering a student with this model is just 12p, rather than £5. Cardiff Council calculates that using this scheme for combining enrolment with electoral registration has saved it some £63,000.

The amendment was passed, against the government, by a majority of 200 to 189.

Beyond students: towards a more inclusive democracy

The principle behind the amendment is a simple and powerful one. Make voter registration easy and convenient and more people will register. If you combine registration with other administrative jobs, such as paying council tax or renewing a driving licence, the paperwork-adverse citizen will be more likely to complete it. It is important that measures therefore go beyond supporting student registration and that the idea is extended to other public services to engage the wider public.

There is a powerful research and international practice to suggest that this works. In the US, a federal Act was passed in the 1990s to expand the number of locations and opportunities whereby eligible citizens could apply to register to vote. In particular, citizens were to be given a voter registration application when they applied for or renewed a driver’s licence (hence it became known as the ‘Motor Voter Act’), or when applying for (or receiving) services at certain other public offices. Nearly one third of registrations are submitted in the US at motor vehicle agencies. Some studies suggest it raised turnout by around 2 percentage points and some have argued that the results could have been even better with improved implementation.

Support for making registration easier dates back to 2014, when a select committee report on Voter Engagement proposed making it automatic. This became the basis of some party manifestos. There is now a growing cross-party consensus about a set of measures that could be used to address the problem of the Missing Millions, with a report on the issue published last year and backed by members of all political parties in Westminster. After all the divisions the Brexit debate has opened up, the effort to build a complete and inclusive democracy is more important than ever before. …”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/03/08/now-theyre-on-a-roll-how-to-get-the-missing-millions-onto-the-electoral-register/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Transparency

Chancellor Philip Hammond – property developer

“The property development company owned by Chancellor Philip Hammond has warned of Britain’s critical shortage of construction workers just weeks before the Brexit negotiations many fear will prevent crucial EU migrant workers coming to the UK.

Hammond privately owns care-home builder Castlemead, which admitted in its recently filed financial accounts that the building industry was “suffering from supply bottlenecks, particularly of skilled tradespeople, driving up costs”.

Separately, a construction investment company he owns called Chiswell (Moorgate) said in its filings: “The scarcity of good quality and committed subcontractors is still an issue.” …

… The Chancellor has not been involved in running his businesses since 2010, owning them through a family trust, but it is believed he is kept abreast of the situation they face.

Directors Richard Shackleton and Joe O’Donnell declined to comment.

Chiswell’s accounts statement was signed off on December 21 while Castlemead’s was dated July 29, a month after the Brexit referendum.

Despite the labour shortages, Hammond’s companies staged a significant bounceback from losses the year before.

Castlemead revealed the property market is so improved it was planning to return to housebuilding after several years out of the “speculative” residential market. …

… Hammond has in the past received a dividend of £1.8 million from the companies. … “

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/building-firms-owned-by-the-chancellor-voice-labour-worries-as-brexit-talks-near-a3484406.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Standards Committee, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Conflict of interest – it starts at the top

“The Bank of England’s new deputy governor has admitted breaching the Bank’s guidelines after she failed to declare that her brother worked for Barclays.

In a letter to the Treasury select committee, Charlotte Hogg apologised for not formally disclosing that her brother was the bank’s director of group strategy, which could conflict with her work on the Prudential Regulation Committee (PRC).

The apology comes after Hogg, who has been touted as a possible successor to Mark Carney, the Bank’s governor, told the committee at a hearing last week that she always declared areas of conflicts of interests and was compliant with all of the Bank’s codes of conduct because she helped write them.

The PRC has direct responsibility for regulating banks, including Barclays.

In the letter, Hogg wrote: “As Barclays Bank plc is regulated by the PRA, under the Bank’s internal code of conduct and personal relationships policy, I should have formally declared my brother’s role when I first joined the Bank.

“I did not do so and I take full responsibility for this oversight. I have now added a full record of my brother’s role in the Bank’s HR systems.

“Regrettably, my oversight means that my oral evidence to the committee in this respect was not accurate. I write now to correct that evidence at the earliest opportunity and to place on record my sincere apologies to the committee.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/07/bank-of-england-deputy-governor-fails-to-declare-conflict-of-interest

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Planning System, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Council applies for judicial review of one of its own planning decisions”

Would never happen here … though Owl does recall something not dissimilar … a while back.

“A local authority has applied for a judicial review of one of its planning decisions, after a councillor voted in favour of an application brought by her brother-in-law.

Applicant Nick Barrett, owner of a restaurant in Long Melford, had applied to Babergh District Council for permission to build an annexe.

His application was approved at a meeting in November 2016. The minutes of the meeting note that Melanie Barrett, Mr Barrett’s sister-in-law, had stated that she had a family association with the applicant.

The minutes of the meeting also said that another councillor had stated that he was employed by a family member of the applicant.

The minutes continued: “Following clarification from Phil Devonald, Interim Deputy Monitoring Officer -Programme Delivery, the legal advisor to the Committee, the Councillors asserted that the statements by Councillors Barrett and Holt did not constitute a disclosable interest by reason of close family relationship or employment as provided for under the Suffolk Local Code of Conduct adopted by the Council.

“He advised however that this was a matter of public perception and confidence in the transparency and fairness of the system and that Members should consider whether they should take part in the proceedings given the nature of their relationship to the Applicant. This advice was not accepted by the Councillors concerned.”

A spokesman for Babergh told Local Government Lawyer that the council had not received any complaints but the authority considered it necessary to take the issue to judicial review.

“On the one hand it is not a good thing that we are having to do this,” he added. “However, it shows that the mechanisms are there to review our actions.”

Mr Barrett told the Suffolk Free Press that the annexe was being built for his 87-year-old father.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30304%3Acouncil-applies-for-judicial-review-of-one-of-its-own-planning-decisions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, East Devon Alliance, Independent Councillors, Sustainability, Transparency, Voting

East Devon Alliance manifesto for Devon County Council election, May 2017

“The East Devon Alliance campaigns for transparency, accountability and democracy in local government. It supports Independent candidates who are responsible to the electors rather than a national party machine.

In the County Council elections, we are supporting Independent East Devon Alliance candidates in the Axminster, Seaton & Colyton, and Sidmouth divisions. Our candidates aim to make Devon County Council more accountable and transparent in all its dealings.

Like all local authorities, Devon County Council is facing an unprecedented long-term loss of funding and control. Once elected, Independent EDA County Councillors will use their positions to campaign for fair funding for local services and ensure local democratic control – rather than allowing central government and corporations to increasingly privatise everything which affects our communities.

Our candidates all support the following platform:

1. We will speak up for our constituents and campaign for local needs, not be bound by a national party line.

2. We will work for Devon County Council to support proper funding of the local NHS and the restoration of a fully public National Health Service, and oppose privatisation of NHS services and closures of community hospitals and beds.

3. We will fight to achieve adequate social care, especially for Devon’s growing population of older people, in the face of continued underfunding of this and other key services including mental health and children’s services.

4. We oppose the reductions in funding for many East Devon schools which will result from the supposedly ‘fairer’ National Funding Framework, and any new proposals to force local schools to become academies.

5. We will work to protect library services in the new mutual framework.

6. We will support local residents fighting for proper road maintenance and highway safety improvements.

7. We believe that rises of 9% in Council Tax over 2 years are unfair to many residents, yet not enough to protect services. Until there is a fairer local tax system, the Government should restore national funding for local services.

8. We also believe that small businesses should be protected from the Government’s changes to business rates.

9. We support genuine devolution of powers from central Government to Devon but we oppose the merger with Somerset in the so-called ‘Heart of the South West’ and the central role which the current opaque devolution proposals give to unelected businessmen in the Local Enterprise Partnership. We oppose the priority to the outdated and ruinously expensive Hinkley C project in these proposals.

10. During the forthcoming negotiations with the EU, we will work to represent the interests of all residents in healthcare, tourism, farming, and rural affairs. We also support initiatives to develop Devon’s tourism economy, welcoming visitors from home and abroad.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Transparency, Voting

PM’s aide linked to election fraud allegations

Michael Crick is on the case again about the evidence showing how one of Prime Minister Theresa May’s top aides was closely linked with activities now being investigated by the police.

At the heart of the matter is the Conservative election campaign in South Thanet during the 2015 general election campaign. The party saw off Nigel Farage and Ukip in that seat, but there are many questions over whether the Conservatives hid campaign spending such as accommodation costs for those working on the campaign so that its official return could show the party kept within the legal limit.

In particular, Michael Crick has highlighted how hotel costs for Nick Timothy were excluded from the expense return because, as I covered previously:

“Rather oddly, the Conservative Party’s explanation as given to Channel 4 is that Nick Timothy was working on the national campaign from the hotel in Ramsgate. Not working on it from his home, or from the Conservative Party’s national HQ where the national campaign was being run. But from a hotel in Ramsgate.”

Now Crick and Channel 4 has unearthed evidence suggesting Nick Timothy was indeed working on the constituency campaign:

A cache of secret documents obtained by Channel 4 News reveal the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Nick Timothy played a central role in a controversial election campaign now under police investigation…

They also appear to directly contradict a previous statement issued by the Party which, when asked about Mr. Timothy’s role in South Thanet, said Mr Timothy “provided assistance for the Conservative Party’s national team”.

The Conservative Party has consistently denied that Mr Timothy worked directly on Craig Mackinlay’s local campaign against Nigel Farage in South Thanet in the 2015 General Election.

But emails seen by this programme appear to show Mr Timothy devising strategy and campaigning messages that were used by Mr Mackinlay’s local campaign.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148541/nick-timothy-thanet-south-election-expenses/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Green (local), Labour ( Devon), Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Exeter councillor goes Green because of “lack of transparency”

Swap Labour for Conservative and East Devon Alliance for Green in East Devon and you have a similar situation – an entrenched old-boys-and-girls power base that needs removing.

“Exeter has its first ever Green Party city councillor following the defection from Labour of Alphington councillor Chris Musgrave. And Cllr Musgrave says he has made the decision as he has become increasingly disillusioned with a ‘small clique making decisions behind closed doors’ and a refusal by the Labour group to accept proper scrutiny in decision making.

Cllr Musgrave says he has been drawn to the Green Party because of their deep-seated commitment to openness and transparency in local government, something he says is ‘in short supply with the current Labour administration.’

He added: “Openness and transparency is in short supply in the local Labour Party. Major decisions are increasingly made by a small clique behind closed doors with the majority of councillors locked out of the process. Whenever I have challenged the Labour Party and Labour-led council on major decisions – which is exactly what I believe I should be doing as an elected Councillor – I have been told in no uncertain terms to be quiet. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/exeter-city-councillor-defects-from-labour-to-join-the-green-party/story-30168791-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

When and how does devolution become a scam?

Georgina Allen:


“Looking at the papers at the moment, there is a stark contrast to be witnessed – on the one hand, local people out in the rain and cold, holding bedraggled posters, begging for hospitals to be saved, for school funds not to be cut, for councils to hold strong against insistent developers – while on the other hand, the self-congratulations of business people and the LEP, the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, on winning yet another enormous handout from the government – £43.56 million this time. This brings their total budget to over £200 million.

Where has this £43 million come from? If the government can’t find money to help keep local hospitals open, how can they suddenly produce this huge windfall? Council budgets here in the South West have been reduced on average by about 40%, forcing councils to cut back on essential services.

Local councils are having to make some very difficult decisions. They are being kept afloat by income from the New Homes Bonuses, money which they are given for every house built. This however, puts them at odds with their constituents, who see thousands of unaffordable new houses spreading over their fields, damaging agriculture, tourism and local infrastructure. Council taxes have gone up, business rates have gone up, services are being cut, yet suddenly this huge windfall has appeared.

The LEP, who have been given this bonanza to share out, are an interesting organisation to be responsible for this amount of public money. They are a self-elected group of business people and councillors. The majority of business represented are from the construction industry. There are also representatives from the arms industry, cyber technology, the nuclear industry and people with financial interests in house building. Their meetings are held in private, they are unaccountable and are not required to be transparent. They are responsible for the division of an enormous amount of public money and yet their board represents the construction industries who benefit the most from the windfall, leading to many awkward conflicts of interest.

Their choices on where to spend this money reflect their own interests too closely in my opinion. Money, which it can be argued, has been taken from council funds, is being sent to fund an upgrade to the train station in Plymouth, to help a proposed new town on the edge of Newton Abbot, to build a high technology centre in Torbay.

All of this investment is good of course, but if it comes at the expense of our hospitals, schools and roads, then questions need to be asked about who is making the decision on where that money goes. If money is being drained from council funds and the public purse to build massive new developments, developments which benefit the businesses that the people making the decisions are in charge of, then the public need to be a lot more informed than they are.

In light of the recent scandals shaking LEPs in other areas, as reported by the Times and the Mail, it would make a lot of sense to ask for a great deal more transparency. To quote the Times article, “Millions of pounds have been spent, however, on businesses run by board members of the partnerships or on the companies of people close to them.” I’m sure our LEP have done nothing wrong, so a little more openness in the way they function cannot hurt.

The lack of openness is especially worrying when you see how fundamentally the changes that the LEP are behind, are changing the face of Devon and Somerset. Housing for example – the LEP have come up with a figure of 169,000 new houses needed for Devon and Somerset.

How have they come up with this figure?

Nobody seems to know – several councillors in my local area of the South Hams have asked and as they put it, ‘have been fobbed off’. The LEP don’t need to answer questions and you can’t do a freedom of information on them as they are not a public body. It’s mentioned that this figure is possibly based on local housing needs assessments – so where do these housing assessments come from? How does a town like Newton Abbot, which has had a static or declining population for many years, suddenly need to double in size according to a ‘local housing need assessment’? I was told by a chief planning officer that he didn’t understand the way they were calculated. I would argue that they are based on market needs not local needs.

Who will benefit then from having a high housing figure? Well the people who develop the land will and it is unfortunate that so many of them are sitting on the board of the LEP. It doesn’t inspire confidence. Many of the houses that have been built are not selling, but that doesn’t seem to stop the LEP and various councils represented on its board, from producing larger and larger plans – the one for a Greater Exeter has just come out.

If they want local people to support them, they must explain where the money is going and why. They must put the money into supporting agriculture, tourism, the environment and services instead of just endless, huge infrastructural projects. They must consult and discuss properly and answer freedom of information requests, otherwise like the other scandal-ridden LEPs, it will just resemble a scam. A scam whereby local services are cut and public money is diverted into supporting private industry and how does that really help any of us.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Infrastructure, Land Supply, Local Plan, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency, Transport (local)

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation – only one public meeting to discuss implications for East Devon

NOTE THAT, UNLIKE THE EMAIL TO EDDC COUNCILLORS (see earlier post) WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED IF WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD SECRET LAND HOLDINGS – THOUGH NO DOUBT THE TAXMAN WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU DID!

THE BIGGEST PLANNING ISSUE TO HIT EAST DEVON SINCE THE LOCAL PLAN AND YOU MUST TREK TO HONITON ON 8 MARCH IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY. THAT’S IT – ONE MEETING IN ONE PLACE.

DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF GREATER EXETER? OWL NEITHER!

“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Consultation: Issues

The local authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in partnership with Devon County Council are working together to prepare a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). This formal statutory document will provide the overall spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land to be provided up to 2040. Please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk for more information.

Engagement with stakeholders and communities will be critical to the success of the Plan. At this first stage, the authorities are consulting on an initial ‘issues document’ which, after setting out some background information, looks to explain the scope and content of the plan as well as describing the key issues facing the Greater Exeter area. This early stage of consultation is designed to stimulate debate and the local planning authorities are seeking your views on the scope and content of the plan as well as the key issues facing your area.

A number of other associated documents are also being consulted on:

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

· The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report is the first stage of work in undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the plan. This process is used to assess the sustainability of the plan content as it develops.

Statement of Community Involvement:

· The joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the approach for consultation in the GESP. The SCI sets out the way in which we will be engaging with communities and other interested parties throughout the process.

The consultation will run from 27 February 2017 until 10 April 2017. To view the consultation material and to make your comments please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/.

Alternatively, paper copies of the consultation document are available to view at your local library and Council Office.

A series of exhibitions are being held during the consultation period in the following locations:

Honiton: Mackarness Hall, High Street, EX14 1PG – Wednesday 8 March 2017, 2pm-8pm

Tiverton: Mid Devon District Council Office, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, EX16 6PP – Wednesday 15 March 2017, 2-8pm
Exeter: The Guildhall, High Street, EX4 3EB – Thursday 16 March 2017, 2-8pm
Newton Abbot: Old Forde House, Brunel Road, TQ12 4XX – Thursday 23 March 2017, 2- 8pm

A ‘call for sites’ has also been arranged to run alongside the consultation. This is a technical exercise which allows interested parties to submit potential sites for development to the Local Authorities. The sites are then assessed to consider whether they are suitable for possible inclusion in the plan. Further information is http://gesp.org.uk/call-for-sites/.

If you need further information please visit the website, email GESP@devon.gov.uk or contact your Local Council using the phone numbers below:

East Devon: 01395 571533
Exeter: 01392 265615
Mid Devon: 01884 234221
Teignbridge: 01626 215735

As there are four Councils contacting their stakeholders for the consultation and call for sites, you may receive duplicate letters/emails. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC Councillors – tell us about your secret acres – so we can put them in our next plans says senior officer!

Extract from an unclassified (i.e. not confidential) email sent out to all councillors by Ed Freeman, Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management, East Devon District Council on the lead-in to the “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan” consultation:

“… The consultation paper is attached for you to get an advanced preview and we would welcome your comments by 10th April. Alongside this will be a call for sites to land owners and developers for housing and employment land across the area which can then be considered for allocation to meet the needs of the area for homes and jobs in the future.

So if you are secretly sat on a few acres of land and would like to put it forward for development now is the time to tell us! …”

Yes, you read that right.

Let us know about any secret land holdings you are sitting on.

NOT so we can report you to the Monitoring Officer for not listing them on your declarations of interest – but so that we can do our best to help you to get them developed.

Owl, for once, hootless!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Sustainability, Transparency

Audit and Governance – internal audit appears to be not too happy with governance

“… In our sample of capital projects, it was evident in speaking to staff that the Council had not anticipated the level of funding required for the Seaton Workshop project at an early stage, which may suggest that insufficient research was done to review the viability of the project prior to approval of the project/budget.

The Finance Team should consider whether evidence to support capital appraisals should be clearly documented. They should also consider implementing clear guidance on the level of initial assessment which should be required to be undertaken for capital projects if this is not clearly stated on any current policy/guidance. Any approach should be based on the level of risk and funding of the project as it was evident that some capital projects are lower in risk and value than others.

There is a risk that proposed projects are not being subject to the right level of assessment which could increase the likelihood of funding the wrong projects, and could also lead to delays and overspend to individual projects.”

Click to access 020317combinedagagenda.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Grenadier, Infrastructure, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Transparency

“Council questioned about Exmouth seafront application”

“District bosses say they will not begin building on Exmouth seafront if an application is approved, despite saying it would permit them to ‘take forward development’.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) has put in a reserved matters application for Queen’s Drive, seeking detailed permission for facilities. EDDC says this will extend outline permission, and allow consultation, but opponents say it would allow building to begin.

Seeking clarification, the Journal approached EDDC, citing the Government’s Planning Portal website, which says: “When all of the reserved matters have been approved, work may begin.”

In response, a spokesman said: “A planning permission that can be implemented is very important. Therefore, the council has applied for approval of matters which were reserved under the outline planning permission. In other words, reserved matters is permission to take forward development, but the council’s development role is limited in budget and authority to build the new road and car park only. The rest of the site will be delivered later and in full consultation with the public.”

When the Journal asked why the application was needed for the road and car park when reserved matters for these had already been approved, the spokesman said: “Yes, the council has a reserved matters approval already for the road and car park but it is necessary for the council to secure reserved matters for the entire site (phases two and three as well as phase one) before the road and car park can be built. In any event, the council will only start works on moving them when it is sure that [developer] Grenadier has secured planning permission for its watersports centre.

“Reserved matters on the rest of the site also enables Grenadier to take forward their plans to consultation, design and planning.”

In response, Independent EDA district councillor Megan Armstrong, who has previously criticised the plans, said: “Why don’t EDDC simply acknowledge the fact that approval of a reserved matters application is a full permission to build without further planning applications or consultation?

“The Government says ‘When all of the reserved matters have been approved, work may begin on the site’. So why doesn’t the council come clean instead of using back door tactics and obscure wording?

“I also find it most bizarre that the district council should apply for this when it seems that it has no intention of using it. What other planning applicant would do this, and at such huge cost to the council tax payer?”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Transparency

“Support for public ownership” – greater than Brexit

Buses

57% want councils to be allowed to set up new public bus companies – 22% oppose this (Survation, 2016)
46% want more public ownership of buses – 11% want more private ownership (Survation, 2016)

Energy

68% want public ownership (YouGov, 2013)

NHS
84% want public ownership (YouGov, 2013)
65% of the public would not feel comfortable using GP services provided by a private company like Atos, Capita, G4S or Serco (Survation, 2014)
74% want hospitals in public ownership (YouGov, 2015)

Parks
70% of the public want public ownership (Survation, 2016)
75% believe councils should have a statutory duty to protect public parks (Survation, 2016)

Prisons
62% want prisons in public ownership (YouGov, 2015)
28% of people think it is appropriate for private companies to run prisons
25% think it is appropriate for private companies to provide court services (Survation, 2014)

Rail
66% want public ownership (YouGov, 2013)
59% want public ownership of Network Rail (Survation, 2015)
20% were in favour of reprivatising the East Coast line (Survation, 2013)

Water
71% want public ownership (Sunday Express, 2012)

Public assets
49% want the Green Investment Bank in public ownership
20% want it to be privatisated (Survation, 2015)
70% want the Land Registry in public ownership (Survation, 2015)
60% want National Air Traffic Services in public ownership (Survation, 2015)
64% want the student loan book to be in public ownership (Survation, 2015)
67% want the Royal Mail in public ownership (YouGov, 2013)

In-house services
61% of the public think that local and central government should try to run services in-house first – before outsourcing (Survation, 2015)
50% are against the current outsourcing trend and want more public services run in-house, 22% want more outsourcing (Survation, 2015)
80% believe that when a public service is put out to tender, there should always be an in-house bid (Survation, 2013)

Accountability
73% of the public think they should be consulted before any outsourcing decisions (Survation, 2015)
68% believe they need a legal right to consultation and information on outsourcing (Survation, 2015)
88% support a right to recall private companies when they do a bad job of running public services (Survation, 2013)
54% think the public sector is more accountable than the private sector (Survation, 2013)

Transparency
67% think that public service contracts and performance data of private companies should be publicly available (Survation, 2015)
60% think Freedom of Information laws should apply to private companies running public services (YouGov, 2016)
48% (mistakenly) believe private contractors are legally obliged to respond to Freedom of Information requests (Survation, 2013)

Outsourcing companies
64% distrust outsourcing companies
21% trust outsourcing companies – compared to NHS (79%), the police (65%) and the armed forces (79%) (Survation, 2014)
69% of the public think Atos, Capita, G4S, Serco are motivated by maximising profit
38% think this should be important (Survation, 2014)
80% think providing the best service to the public should motivate Atos, Capita, G4S and Serco
22% of the public think this is the case (Survation, 2014)
59% think more regulation of private companies running public services is needed
16% think there is adequate regulation already (Survation, 2014)
58% believe G4S and Serco should be banned from all government contracts if found guilty of fraud (Survation, 2013)

https://weownit.org.uk/public-solutions/support-public-ownership

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

1 Comment

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

“Candy Udwin, from Camden Keep NHS Public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

“East Devon District Council’s scrutiny committee blasts NHS Property Services”

From the blog of Claire Wright- good to see one committee at EDDC doing a proper job:

“East Devon District Council’s scrutiny committee has delivered a stinging rebuke against the secretary of state for health’s private company, NHS Property Services after the managers declined once again to attend a meeting.

A similar thing has happened at Devon County Council’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee. The company claims to be part of the “NHS family” but it appears, only when it suits them.

The resolution below, speaks for itself. Congratulations to chairman, Roger Giles and all those councillors who spoke and voted for the resolution.

1. The Scrutiny Committee records its deep regret that the NHS Property Services has declined its invitation to a meeting of the East Devon District Council Scrutiny Committee;

2. The Scrutiny Committee to write to the three local MPs representing East Devon, expressing its concern at the failure of NHS Property Services to agree to attend a meeting of the East Devon District Council Scrutiny Committee, and asks the MPs to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Health, with a view to his ensuring proper openness and transparency in the work of NHS Property Services, and ensuring proper public scrutiny of the work of the NHS Property Services, by requiring attendance at meetings of local councils when requested to do so;

3. The Scrutiny Committee to write to the Devon County Council Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, expressing its concerns;

4. The Scrutiny Committee to write to NHS Property Services requesting details of the actual market rent for Axminster Hospital, Budleigh Salterton Hospital, Exmouth Hospital, Honiton Hospital, Seaton Hospital and Sidmouth Hospital, with details of how those figures were arrived at.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/east_devon_district_councils_scrutiny_committee_blasts_nhs_property_service

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Limited number of meetings in East Devon on latest NHS cuts

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

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

The high priority acute services being reviewed are:

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

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

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

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

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

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