Category Archives: Transparency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Has EDDC’s new Manstone depot satellite office block been included in relocation costs?

The following Freedom of Information request implies that the cost may not have been included, but we shall see, we hope.

Owl wonders why just one set of employees has been left in Sidmouth in brand new offices and why they could not be accommodated on the Honiton site or the Exmouth site. Surely, THREE sets of offices will be MUCH more expensive to run than one HQ? But cost barely seem to concern Tory councillors, who seem to feel there is little need to scrutinise them.

“Laissez les bons temps rouler!”

“Dear Ms Symington,

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

On 22nd December, I corresponded with the Planning Department with regard to the Council’s planning application for offices for its Estates Department at the Manstone Depot in Sidmouth: https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online…

Several of my questions were answered, but not the following:

“The site is now clearly part of the District Council’s relocation project. This application represents the relocation of one of the key departments from the Knowle site – and yet there has been no mention in the Moving and Improving site pages: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/moving-and-impro…
“And I am unable to find any other information about this relocation of the Estates Department elsewhere.”

Could you provide me with any such references to this project (other than the planning application itself), either as documentation or weblinks.

And could you provide me with the full and exact costings for this planning application: the building costs of the new offices and where the finance for this project will be coming from.

On 9th January, the District Council stated the following to the press:

“The transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project and, as such, included within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/dis…

Could you provide me with the documentation which shows how the transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project.

And could you indicate exactly where this information is located within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.

I would be grateful if you could answer the four stipulated questions above.

Thank you.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Jeremy Woodward
Sidmouth”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costing_the_relocating_of_the_es

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Devon and Cornwall Police under- reporting crimes – by up to 17,400 per year

Isn’t this just the sort of thing Ms Hernandez, our Police and Crime Commissioner, is supposed to be making sure doesn’t happen?

Does she have a plan?

East Devon District Council has a former copper (Councillor Tom Wright) on the committee she reports to – perhaps he could ask her.

However, as this committee met recently only to set the police precept and its next meeting, scheduled for 7 April 2017* has already been cancelled:

http://web.plymouth.gov.uk/modgov?modgovlink=http%3A%2F%2Fdemocracy.plymouth.gov.uk%2FieListMeetings.aspx%3FCommitteeId%3D1051

that might prove to be a bit difficult.

* surely this meeting has not been cancelled to avoid bad news for the Tories just before DCC elections?

The Plymouth Herald covers the story here:

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/rape-and-child-abuse-not-being-recorded-by-police/story-30121826-detail/story.html

and says:

“Inspectors said the force had “no excuse” for the failings and had failed to act on many of the recommendations it had made three years ago.”

The story on the BBC Live website:

“Devon and Cornwall police are failing victims of crime by not recording thousands of offences, including rape and serious assaults, an official report has found.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary estimates the force is failing to record more than 17,400 reported crimes each year.

The policing regulator rated the force as “inadequate” on the issue.

HM Inspector of Constabulary Wendy Williams said: “I was most concerned to find that the force had failed to record reports of rape, serious sexual assault and offences of serious assault and human trafficking.”

The force said they put victims at the heart of their work, and most of the criticisms concerned updating records and administration.”

Source: BBC Devon Live website

Here is the PCC’s catch-all spin response which shows that her former job in PR is one to which she could readily return:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/police-commissioner-alison-hernandez-says-police-must-improve-in-row-over-crime-reporting/story-30123712-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

National Audit Office slams health and care integration implementation

HOW CAN CUTS TO COMMUNITY HOSPITALS GO AHEAD AFTER THIS STINGING REPORT?

The National Audit Office report issued today
Summary

“Health and social care integration

The Better Care Fund has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or hospital activity.

National Audit Office

“Integrating the health and social care sectors is a significant challenge in normal times, let alone times when both sectors are under such severe pressure. So far, benefits have fallen far short of plans, despite much effort.

It will be important to learn from the over-optimism of such plans when implementing the much larger NHS sustainability and transformation plans.The Departments do not yet have the evidence to show that they can deliver their commitment to integrated services by 2020, at the same time as meeting existing pressures on the health and social care systems.”

The National Audit Office warns that progress with integration of health and social care has, to date, been slower and less successful than envisaged and has not delivered all of the expected benefits for patients, the NHS or local authorities. As a result, the government’s plan for integrated health and social care services across England by 2020 is at significant risk.

In the face of increased demand for care and constrained finances, while the Better Care Fund, the principal integration initiative, has improved joint working, it has not yet achieved its potential. The Fund has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or reduced hospital activity, from the £5.3 billion spent through the Fund in 2015-16.

Nationally, the Fund did not achieve its principal financial and service targets over 2015-16, its first year. Planned reductions in rates of emergency admissions were not achieved, nor did the Fund achieve the planned savings of £511 million. Compared with 2014-15, emergency admissions increased by 87,000 against a planned reduction of 106,000, costing £311 million more than planned. Furthermore, days lost to delayed transfers of care increased by 185,000, against a planned reduction of 293,000, costing £146 million more than planned.

The Fund has, however, been successful in incentivising local areas to work together; more than 90% of local areas agreed or strongly agreed that delivery of their plan had improved joint working. Local areas also achieved improvements at the national level in reducing permanent admissions of people aged 65 and over to residential and nursing care homes, and in increasing the proportion of older people still at home 91 days after discharge from hospital into reablement or rehabilitation services.

There is general agreement across the health and social care sectors that place-based planning is the right way to manage scarce resources at a system-wide level. However, local government was not involved in the design and development of the NHS-led sustainability and transformation planning programme. Local authorities’ engagement in the planning and decision making phase has been variable, although four sustainability and transformation planning areas are led by local authority officials.

The Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government have identified barriers to integration, such as misaligned financial incentives, workforce challenges and the reticence over information sharing, but are not systematically addressing them.

Research commissioned by the government in 2016 concluded that local areas are not on track to achieve the target of integrated health and social care by 2020.

Today’s report also found that NHS England’s ambition to save £900 million through introducing seven new care models may be optimistic. The new care models are as yet unproven and their impact is still being evaluated. According to the NAO, while the Departments and their partners have set up an array of initiatives examining different ways to transform care and create a financially sustainable care system, their governance and oversight of the initiatives is poor. The Integration Partnership Board only receives updates on progress of the Better Care Fund with no reporting from other integration programmes.

In addition, the NAO found no compelling evidence to show that integration in England leads to sustainable financial savings or reduced acute hospital activity. While there are some good examples of integration at a local level, evaluations have been inhibited by a lack of comparable cost data across different care settings, and difficulty tracking patients through different care settings. The NAO today reiterates its emphasis from its 2014 report on the Better Care Fund that there is a need for robust evidence on how best to improve care and save money through integration and for a co-ordinated approach.”

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/health-and-social-care-integration/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

“BBC commits £8m for 150 local democracy reporters to cover council meetings”

Well, the need for a BBC-paid journalist to work for a newspaper that already has “a previous track record of public service journalism” should knock out the odd newspaper group in our area! Perhaps there should be a further qualification that the newspapers should receive less than 50% of that area’s council advertising budget too! And a shame that they won’t be allowed to attend Local Enterprise Partnership board meetings which are held in secret.

“The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is to fund 150 news reporters to cover council and public meetings across the UK to enable better scrutiny of council proceedings and decisions.

The journalists will work for “qualifying” regional publishers rather than the BBC, with the remit of covering full council and committee meetings, and will share the information gained with the BBC. To qualify, local news organisations will need to demonstrate that they have a “previous track record” of public service journalism, as well as the ability to employ staff.

James Harding, director of BBC News and Current Affairs, said: “As more power is devolved across the UK, it’s more important than ever that we cover, understand and hold to account local politicians and public services,” he said.

The initiative forms part of the BBC’s new charter which commences this year and is aimed at filling the growing gaps in local news reporting as local newspapers have suffered from declining revenues.

So far, the BBC has allocated 20 reporters in Scotland, three in Northern Ireland, 11 in Wales and 104 in England, with plans to place the full 150 journalists by 2018.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29922%3Abbc-commits-p8m-for-150-local-democracy-reporters-to-cover-council-meetings&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Feb 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Scrutiny, Transparency

Developers “profit sharing” with NHBC warranty firm

“The organisation that provides warranties for most of the new homes in Britain is paying millions of pounds to the leading housebuilders every year, raising questions about its independence and credibility amid a wave of complaints about the quality of new-build properties.

NHBC, the standard-setting body and main home construction warranty provider for new builds in the UK, is paying around £10m to £15m every year to housebuilders through what is effectively a profit-share agreement. The largest firms can receive as much as £2m from the scheme, because it rewards the developers who registered the most homes with NHBC.

Campaigners said the revelation shows that NHBC is on the side of developers rather than consumers and that the lack of protection for buyers of new homes is a “scandal”.

A senior industry source said the annual payment to the housebuilders was a way to keep them “sweet” and ensure they remained NHBC customers. The source also said that the system is open to abuse, and there were at least two occasions since 2010 when a major housebuilder asked for an extra or increased payment which was approved by NHBC.

The questions about the credibility of NHBC, which claims to have an 80% share of the warranties market, will also be a headache for the government, which is poised to launch its housing white paper this week.

PM to reaffirm green belt pledge despite plans to ramp up housebuilding
There have been an increasing number of complaints about problems with new homes and the lack of protection and compensation for consumers from NHBC’s warranties. Last month it was revealed that Bovis had paid the purchasers of new homes to move in early only for the buyers to find the property unfinished.

The NHBC warranty is a form of insurance that is supposed to compensate home buyers or fix any faults in the new property if there are problems within the first 10 years.

Paula Higgins, co-founder and chief executive of the campaign group HomeOwners Alliance, said: “As we have more houses being built and the government encouraging people to buy new homes, we are seeing more and more issues with quality.

“The government is more concerned with numbers than homes for the future and there is a real danger that we are building the wrong sort of home.”

Higgins said NHBC was “too much of a monopoly” in the warranties market and described its relationship with housebuilders as “cosy”.

“I think NHBC is acting on behalf of the developers and its members. I don’t think they are acting on behalf of consumers,” said Higgins. “The quality of new homes – it is a scandal.”

The potential conflict of interest between NHBC paying compensation to consumers and returning cash to housebuilders will lead to more calls for the government to introduce an independent ombudsman to oversee complaints about new homes or for the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate NHBC’s dominance of the market.

Oliver Colvile, the Conservative MP who chair an all-party parliamentary group on new-build properties, said he had great concern about the independence of NHBC. He called for an ombudsman to be introduced and for homebuyers to be allowed to inspect their new home before they purchase it.

“I think what needs to happen is that the government needs to look at this seriously. This is a consumer rights issue,” he said. “Lets put the consumer on top of the list. I want to see action on this issue.”

NHBC has faced questions about its independence before because it is paid a membership fee by housebuilders, meaning they effectively fund it. However, this is the first time it has been revealed that NHBC pays millions back to developers.

The payment is referred to as a “premium refund” in the financial accounts of NHBC. However, it is only mentioned in the notes to the accounts and the amount paid out is not disclosed.

A letter seen by the Guardian from NHBC to a housebuilder shows the payment is based on a complex calculation that takes into account the number of homes registered by the developer 15 years ago, the cost of claims paid out on these homes and the investment return earned by the NHBC. The 15-year period allows time for the property to be built, sold and the warranty to expire. However, on top of this formula, each year the NHBC also determines the size of the total pot of cash that is available to be shared out with the housebuilders.

NHBC defended the payments but refused to confirm how much it had paid out to housebuilders or comment on the extra payments to the two housebuilders.

The NHBC said: “NHBC provides a market-leading warranty, which currently protects 1.6 million UK consumers.

“Last year we paid £90m in respect of claims in addition to providing assistance to homeowners through our resolution service, which mediates between homeowners and their builder and last year found in favour of homeowners in 70% of cases.

“As is standard practice, we do not discuss our commercial transactions or our underwriting terms.

“It is common practice in the insurance industry to recognise good claims history in a number of ways such as no-claim bonuses, and this is what our premium refund system, established in the 1990s and disclosed in our accounts, is designed to achieve.

“The system is consistently applied and is based on clear rules and processes. As this refund recognises long-term good claims history, the rules state that builders do not need to be current NHBC customers to receive it.

“The sum paid in refunds is a very small proportion of NHBC’s annual turnover.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/05/new-homes-warranty-firm-pays-millions-to-leading-homebuilders

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

A council “Communications Officer” (press officer) tells the truth about his soul-destroying job

“I can’t face watching I, Daniel Blake because every day I feel complicit in a system that denigrates vulnerable people.

I knew leaving the voluntary sector to go and work for a local authority would require a culture shift, but I did not fully comprehend how difficult it would be to put a positive spin on cuts to local services after years spent promoting social justice campaigns.

I am part of a team which creates and distributes communications to the general public, through newsletters, the council website, on social media and through the local media. Working in communications often means putting aside your personal opinions and values for the good of the organisation paying your salary, and I have a lot of sympathy with local authorities now I’ve seen it from the inside.

I field calls for stretched council services – and soon my job may be cut too.

With brutal funding cuts from central government and the growing pressure on services, many councils are trying to make the best of a bad situation and make budgets stretch, regardless of politics.

But when Ken Loach’s ‘I, Daniel Blake’ was released last year, all my friends went to watch it in the cinema. I could not face going with them, knowing I was complicit in the same system the film portrayed as destroying people’s lives.

I can see the red tape responsible for the denigration of vulnerable people around me every day, and to be responsible for dressing up the effects of needless bureaucracy in a pretty package for our local papers is soul-destroying. Our press releases go through rigorous rounds of sign off, through all sorts of departments, senior council officers and councillors, all of whom want to remove any material that could incur criticism, which results in bland, council-speak copy.

People probably wouldn’t expect a press officer to care about local reporters, especially as they are usually asking us for responses to critical stories about the council, but I have real sympathy with them. Most of them are inexperienced and clearly stretched for time and resources: their copy is riddled with factual errors that could easily have been double checked, resulting in fractious phone calls between our side and theirs.

The vulnerable people I became a councillor to help have no idea I’m here. The reality is most residents don’t have the time or inclination to attend committee meetings or read all the reports and documents produced by the council. They should know how funding cuts are going to affect their local services and communities. It’s all there in black and white if you know where to find it. It’s an easier time for us if contentious issues pass through committees easily, as there are fewer difficult questions from reporters for the week’s papers.

Social media has become another accountability function for councils, which creates a lot more noise for us to deal with. Most councils will have active citizen campaigners ready to jump on any communication the council puts out to rip it to shreds. These days, it’s actually these people, rather than journalists, who spot the things the council would prefer went unquestioned. It can be disheartening, particularly when you’ve worked hard to capture the nuance of a complicated situation, but when you agree with the critics over the council it’s hard to take it too personally.”

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/feb/04/media-press-officer-council-cuts-local-papers-daniel-blake

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

How long is a piece of NHS Property Services string?

New owners of Sidmouth Victoria Hospital under fire for ‘incomprehensible’ answer to rent question.

NHS Property Services (NHSPS) took over 12 East Devon community hospitals on December 1, 2016 – prompting fears from some trustees and representatives over the future of the facilities under a commercially-operated company.

Speaking at a recent Devon County Council (DCC) health and wellbeing scrutiny meeting, Councillor Claire Wright called for NHSPS bosses to be held to account and voiced her frustration at repeated failures to provide the authority with more information.

Cllr Wright asked the company to outline how much each community hospital is being charged in rent, but NHSPS says it is unable to disclose the figures as they remain in commercial confidence while lease negotiations are being concluded.

Cllr Wright said: “I asked for the information in June and I asked again and they said they would get the information and they did not. The answer they have given is incomprehensible.

“A very strong message needs to go back that we have now been waiting seven months for an answer to a very straightforward question and we would appreciate it if they would come to the next meeting because they now own 12 community hospitals across East Devon.”

NHSPS is responsible for managing 3,500 NHS buildings and ploughs any profits back into the health services – selling on property it considers no longer necessary.

Cllr Wright argued it cannot ‘pick and choose’ and, if it is – as claimed – a part of the NHS family, should be held accountable.

Sidmouth fundraisers have vowed to safeguard the future of the town’s hospital, which has undergone a £5million refurbishment paid for entirely by community contributions.

Vice president of the Sidmouth Victoria Hospital Comforts Fund, Frances Newth, said it has received assurance from NHSPS that there should be no noteable changes under the new ownership. She added that trustees have emphasised the amount of community support received in the town and the importance of maintaining it.

Responding to a question from DCC about the amount of rental income compared to figures spent on maintenance, NHSPS revealed its budgeted rental income for 2016/17 is £408 million nationally.

The amount set out for routine, small-scale maintenance in this period is £98 million – which does not include overheads such as salaries of teams carrying out the work – and an additional £60 million is forecasted for larger maintenance projects.

A spokesman for NHSPS said: “The information sent to the council this month was provided further to attending two committee sessions in 2016, where members had the opportunity to question company representatives in person.

“We have provided supporting written information on two other occasions, as requested by the council.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new_owners_of_sidmouth_victoria_hospital_under_fire_for_incomprehensible_answer_to_rent_question_1_4874530

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Development Management Committee, Scrutiny, Transparency

Tell the truth and be fired …

“A veteran councillor in Theresa May’s constituency has been sacked after questioning plans for thousands of homes in the green belt.

Leo Walters, a former Conservative mayor of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, was removed as chairman of the council’s housing scrutiny panel after expressing concern that the public had not been fully informed about the threat to the green belt.

He said that he had been removed by Simon Dudley, the council’s leader, after “simply handing out facts”.

Mr Walters had sent an email to his fellow panel members informing them of a Freedom of Information response from the council revealing that 86 per cent of the land that it was proposing for development was in the green belt. …”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Devolution, EDBF, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Is Trump using the Local Enterprise Partnership model?

This is spookily like the way our Local Enterprise Partnerships (and before that, the East Devon Business Forum) were created – with business people in the driving seat and councils as passengers without seatbelts!

“President Donald Trump met with a roomful of top CEOs at the White House – and says he tried to install other titans of industry on his executive council only to have them nixed as ‘corporate raiders.’

Trump met with a group that included Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink, retired GE CEO Jack Welch – whom he called ‘legendary’ – and other business bigs.

As if that weren’t enough financial firepower, Trump said that he tried to get other financial bigs onto the panel, which meets about once a month to advise him the economy, taxes, and regulations.

‘So many people have called – friends of mine in big business,’ Trump said, ‘and that wanted to be on the committee.’

Billionaire Stephen Schwartzman of Blackstone private equity firm, who serves on the council, acted as gatekeeper. “I said, ‘Steve, can we get so and so?’ Trump said, with the CEOs gathered around him.

‘Nope,’ Schwartzman replied. ‘What do you mean no, it’s big business, massive business,’ Trump pleaded, in his telling.

‘How about this one?’ Trump would ask.

‘He’s a corporate raider, these people don’t want to be sitting with corporate raiders,’ was Schwartzman’s reply.

‘He’s been very very selective,’ Trump said, adding: ‘We’ll be putting a couple more on this.’

Introducing the group, Trump hailed BlackRock investment company CEO Larry Fink for having boosted his personal bottom line through investments.

Trump displayed no reservations about asking some of the world’s most influential bankers about their preferences for peeling back bank regulations enacted after the financial crisis.

‘We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody to tell me better about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it, but we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank.

The White House billed the event as a strategy and policy forum.
The group’s official title is the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum. It has 16 members.

Absent from the event was Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick, who announced just hours before that he had quit, following pressure from consumers over Trump’s new immigration order.

Trump didn’t mention Kalanick during his public comments.

The Uber boss quit the council, even as the company is facing blowback for its decision to drop its congestion pricing during a taxi boycott meant to oppose the immigration order.

He made his decision known in an email to employees, where he argued against Trump’s new immigration ban.

‘Earlier today I spoke briefly with the president about the immigration executive order and its issues for our community,’ Kalanick wrote. ‘I also let him know that I would not be able to participate on his economic council. Joining the group was not meant to be an endorsement of the president or his agenda but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that,’ he added.

Trump hailed another attendee, his Commerce Secretary nominee, billionaire Wilbur Ross.

‘When I campaigned for office I promised the American people that I’d ask for our country’s best and brightest, and we have that. Wilbur is representing us,’ Trump said.

Trump said of close confidante and business magnate Carl Icahn, ‘Carl Icahn called up and he goes, ‘I heard you got Wilbur. Everybody calls him Wilbur. I’ve never heard him called – we just know him as Wilbur, right?”

Trump met the business honchos as he prepared to sign executive actions asking the Treasury and the Labor Departments to examine reforms to roll back regulations intended to make markets safer and protect consumers.
The actions would examine the ‘Volcker Rule,’ meant to curb speculation, AFP reported.

‘(We) believe that Dodd-Frank in many respects was a piece of massive government overreach,’ a senior administration official told the outlet. ‘It imposed hundreds of new regulations on financial institutions, it established an enormous amount of work and effort for financial firms.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4188962/Trump-meets-CEOs-says-ll-slash-bank-regs.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

Trump takes a leaf out of EDDC’s book!

“Public-interest advocacy groups say the White House appears to be deliberately structuring Trump’s growing roster of business-focused advisory groups in order to avoid becoming subject to a federal transparency law that requires such meetings be formally announced in advance and open to the public.

“Whether it’s hastily drafted executive orders put together in the dead of night and riddled with errors and not consulting the pertinent government agencies or putting together other proposals that are shocking to many Americans, nothing that has been done so far has been inclusive, so it’s not a surprise his small working groups of CEOs would be just the same,” said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen.

A 1972 law aimed at limiting back-room influence by special interests, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, regulates the operation of federal government advisory council. Normally, the meetings of such groups are announced at least ten days in advance in the Federal Register and the sessions are open to the public. Advisory committees are also required to have an official charter, records available to the public and a federal official present during all deliberations. Presidential advisory panels are also typically set up through executive orders.

So far, there have been no official notices of any meetings and no executive orders laying out the duties of the “Strategic and Policy Forum” or any other groups Trump is convening.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-transparency-law-advisory-boards-234583

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Dorset, EDDC, Golden Triangle LEP, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Enterprise Partnership, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Somerset, Transparency

Relocation and local government reorganisation – a chance to save money!

What is currently more important in local government? Saving money, saving money by merger or being profligate? These seem to be the stark choices facing our district, with its reliance on the Local Enterprise Partnership for strategy, direction and funding.

Closer examination of the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting reveals that there are two references to local government reorganisation: at the bottom of page 111 and on page 115:

“Identify opportunities for rationalising/improving existing public sector governance arrangements and make recommendations to the constituent authorities/partners”

This appears to be a clear reference, as it not only refers to reform, but also says that the recommendations will go to ‘constituent authorities’. In other words we are not talking just about the LEP. The new Joint Committee clearly has mergers in mind. Add “Greater Exeter” into the mix and we come out with even more likelihood of massive changes. THEN add a mooted “Golden Triangle LEP” and we have a truly chaotic situation.

Owl wonders if these are circumstances in which to pursue a new HQ for EDDC at Honiton. Any proposal involving EDDC and avoiding building at Honiton can immediately claim to have made a minimum saving of £10 million plus interest payments, plus many associated costs – savings now being the mantra nowadays.

The relocation from Knowle could, in the above circumstances prove to be most expensive suicide note in the history of our district. And those EDDC members who waved through the move to Honiton, without the slightest idea of the cost, could in these circumstances be likened to turkeys voting for Christmas.

We have seen with the reorganisation in Dorset, that the reform and merger of local government authorities is very much in the air, and Dorset has been suggesting that the creation of two unitaries will lead to annual savings of many millions of pounds.

So it’s not surprising that things have gone very quiet with EDDC relocation. Firstly, there is local government reorganisation all around us and within our nearby city and the county. Secondly, the Pegasus deal for Knowle has seemingly gone very much on the back burner.

We have recently seen the formal separation – ‘decoupling’ – of the Exmouth Town Hall work from the Honiton proposal which seems to have had more to do with mothballing Honiton than it had to do with allowing Exmouth to proceed more quickly.

Work to refurbish Knowle is almost certainly millions of pounds cheaper than relocating. Plus, a new building in Honiton would immediately depreciate enormously on day one of occupation – 50% plus has been suggested.

Of course, PegasusLife could always put in a planning application for the Honiton site!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Health and Social Care (local), Local Enterprise Partnership, NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

Our Local Enterprise Partnership and the NHS (or not the NHS)

Comment turned into post:

“In the light of the concern over the future of the NHS it may be worth reminding ourselves just what Heart of the South West LEP proposed, on our behalf, in their 2015 Devolution Statement of Intent:

We [HOTSW] will:

• Increase productivity by reducing ill-health and reliance on the state

• Reduce overall need for formal health and social care services

• Reduce the cost of health and social care

• Help more people with long-term illnesses or mental ill-health start or return to work

What we need:

• Freedom to pool budgets and direct resources to local need

• Freedom to develop a commissioning framework that supports local decision-making

• Freedom to establish effective, integrated governance and delivery structures

• Freedom to develop local metrics and incentives

(The associated productivity prospectus says something which sounds even more sinister: “A healthier population means lower public sector costs and increased economic activity. To fill 163,000 more jobs [by 2030] we must engage the non-working population in the labour market which will require a significant health and care contribution.”)

Here is what the Public Accounts Committee concluded about LEPs and devolution in its report of 27 June 2016. (Kevin Foster MP, Conservative Torbay, is a Committee member)

“9. It is alarming that LEPs are not meeting basic standards of governance and transparency, such as disclosing conflicts of interest to the public.

LEPs are led by the private sector, and stakeholders have raised concerns that they are dominated by vested interests that do not properly represent their business communities. There is a disconnect between decisions being made by local business leaders and accountability working via local authorities.

It is therefore crucial that LEPs demonstrate a high standard of governance and transparency over decision making, at least equal to the minimum standards set out by government in the assurance framework.

It is of great concern that many LEPs appear not be meeting these minimum standards. The scale of LEP activity and the sums involved necessitate that LEPs and central government be pro-active in assuring the public that decisions are made with complete probity.

The fact that 42% of LEPs do not publish a register of interests is clearly a risk to ensuring that decisions are made free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The varying presentation and detail of financial information across LEPs also makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or make comparisons across LEPs on how they spend public money.”

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/296/29605.htm

The National Audit Office in a 2016 report also made the obvious, but crucial, point that LEPs do not yet have an established track record of delivery.

Our future is in their hands!”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, DCC, Devolution, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Somerset, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC Cabinet to discuss devolution and LEP on 8 February … councils only “influence” LEP

From Cabinet agenda – Owl summary: it has taken 5+ years for the participating councils to realise that the business people on the LEP are running rings round them and still the only thing councils can do is “influence” those same business people:

“Risk implications will continue to be addressed at all stages of these proposals.

The Secretary of State is yet to formally clarify his position on the HotSW devolution proposal although the overall policy direction seems to be becoming clearer.

In the circumstances the Leader feel that the partnership needs to move forward with the priority development of the HotSW Productivity Plan and that this can best be achieved through the establishment of a formal Joint Committee in place of the current informal governance arrangements. This will put a formal governance structure around the Productivity Plan preparation, approval and delivery so minimising risk to the County Council and the other partner authorities. It will give partners the ability to negotiate with Government at pace, particularly on the emerging Industrial Strategy but without the statutory commitment required to establish a Combined Authority.

Without a Productivity Plan and Joint Committee in place the Council and its partners will be at a disadvantage in negotiating and lobbying Government on a range or policy initiatives including the growth agenda and are likely to miss out on potential funding streams.

…..

“The HotSW Joint Committee will provide a formal strategic partnership to complement and maximise the ability of local sub- regional arrangements to deliver their aspirations. It will allow the partners to collaborate to agree and deliver the Productivity Plan as well as engage effectively with the Government, other deal areas and other LEPs on a range of policy agendas. It will allow the partnership to test and improve its ability to work together as a potential precursor to the establishment of a Combined Authority at some point in the future. It will also provide a mechanism to work alongside and influence the LEP on strategic investment decisions affecting the HotSW area and to secure improvements to LEP governance and accountability.”

Click to access combinedcabagenda080217final.pdf

(topic begins on page 107)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Planning System, Regeneration, Transparency

“Queen’s Drive. Is it a full planning application or not?”

Press Release 31.1.17

“A most heated debate took place at Exmouth Town Council’s Planning Committee meeting last night.

Cllr Megan Armstrong, an EDA Independent District Councillor for Exmouth explained at some length that the “Reserved Matters Application” they were about to debate was in effect a “Full Planning Application” for phases 2 and 3 for the Queen’s Drive development.

The Chairman however interjected half way through her 3 minute allocated time and stated she wished to make a point clear. She then explained that East Devon District Council (the Applicant) has not allocated funding for the project, and therefore was not in a position to proceed.

NOTE (The consideration that an applicant has funds to deliver a project is not a consideration for a planning committee to debate).

Cllr Megan Armstrong was then allowed to proceed and stated she hoped the committee would consider the planning application without reference to the press releases and documents sent to each councillor by the applicant.
“Forget the promise of further consultations and further promises of more planning applications, don’t be confused by the press releases and further information sent to you, they are inadmissible.”

“You have to consider this application on its own merits from the documents and plans presented and anything else you have been told is irrelevant and should not be a consideration.”

NOTE (Planning regulations state that an applicant can apply in one of two ways. To submit a “Full Planning Application”, or if the application is substantial or problematic the applicant can submit an “Outline Planning Application” reserving all the detailed drawings and details to be submitted if the outline application is approved within a 3 year time period. This is known as a “Reserved Matters Application”).

Following the representations from a number of local residents and Cllr Armstrong the Chairman opened the debate to the planning committee.
Cllr Bill Nash (Conservative) started the proceedings explaining to the committee that Cllr Armstrong was incorrect and referring to the press release and documents sent by the applicant, explained that the application was merely an extension to the outline, and that there will be further planning applications and consultations for Phases 2 and 3.

At no time during the whole debate were the plans explained or shown on the large screen. The only document shown throughout the debate on the overhead projector was a flowchart of the possible suggested consultations and planning applications that may be brought forward at a later date.

In fact one councillor stated he looked forward to the plans for the “Watersports Centre” in phase 2 and another councillor was most interested in seeing the proposals for the hotel plans in phase 3.

This simply demonstrated that some of the planning committee members had not seen the full list of documents that they were now discussing.

The local authority planning portal has all the detailed plans for the application, and it is standard practice for major planning applications for the local authority to provide paper copies as well as providing the information online to assist councillors to understand the proposal that they were required to debate and on which they should agree a proposal.
Within the documents provided were very detailed drawings of both the proposed hotel and full details of the watersports centre, showing every aspect including the positions of the tables and chairs and the cycle store layout!

The public who are not allowed to comment or interject during the debate were at times most vocal to the discussion and content of the debate, demonstrating their displeasure as much as they were able.

The whole debate centred on the issue that it was a “mere exercise” in extending an outline application (this is not permitted in National Planning Policy). The other issues debated were the further consultations and further planning applications.

NOTE. (A planning application should be considered in its entirety with only the planning documents presented by the applicant and separate from any other planning application).

Without a single explanation of the design and layout and without a single illustration of the proposal the chair asked for a vote and the decision was carried 6 votes to 3.

The decision demonstrates the change in opinion as the previous outline application was not supported by the Town Council and in fact Cllr Bill Nash wrote a very strong letter of objection regarding the outline proposal in 2013 on behalf of his constituents living on Trefusis Terrace overlooking the proposed development.

Cllr Megan Armstrong when asked about the decision said:

“I was not surprised by the inconsistencies and change in opinion. It is unfortunate that such an important decision seems to have been turned into a party political game which is so sad. Party politics should not be an issue for such a momentous decision for the people of Exmouth.”

“However the town council planning committee is simply a consultee and the final decision will be made at East Devon’s Development Management Committee meeting at Sidmouth in a few months’ time.”

“Let us all hope that the facts will be explained without any spin and the decision is agreed democratically by the members on the district council committee.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Honiton/ Gittisham, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Transparency

Knowle relocation costs: it’s up to us to check as councillors don’t get the information

And this is how we do it (whilst we have a Freedom of information Act):

“Dear East Devon District Council,

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

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

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

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_to_date_of_knowle_bhonito?nocache=outgoing-618160#outgoing-618160

And if they say they can’t tell us how much it has cost so far …..

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Spin, Transparency

Exmouth Visitor Survey

“Last year nearly 5000 people in Exmouth voted in favour of further “INDEPENDENT consultation before any further action (including submission of planning applications) was taken on The Queen’s Drive.

While this has been roundly ignored by EDDC. they did at least seek the opinion of visitors. When independent Cllr Megan Armstrong carried out the Seafront Survey with support from SES we found visitors hold similar values around the seafront as residents, and that it was Exmouth’s unique charm that kept them coming back. Alarmingly many said they would no longer visit Exmouth if The Queen’s Drive development went ahead. I would have thought EDDC would be concerned about this yet it is just another piece of evidence that has been ignored.

Here is the EDDC website announcing the visitor survey, note the last paragraph states the results will be reported to ‘the team’ (Coastal Communities) at the end of the year (2016) …”

https://saveexmouthseafront.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/exmouth-visitors-survey-an-update-of-sorts/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Regeneration, Transparency

Knowle yesterday, Parliament today!

“Plans for a £4bn restoration of the Palace of Westminster that would mean MPs and peers leaving the building for six years have been thrown into doubt by a powerful Commons committee, which says there is insufficient evidence for it to back the project.

In an extraordinary move, the all-party Treasury select committee is to appoint its own team of specialist advisers to gather what it says is the necessary level of detail about the work and costs, claiming previous exhaustive investigations by parliament and private consultants failed to produce sufficient evidence. The committee’s chairman, Andrew Tyrie, took Commons authorities by surprise by announcing that a Commons debate, which he says was due to be held this week on the restoration, had been postponed because MPs did not have the facts they needed. Commons sources said Tyrie was mistaken and no date for the debate had been fixed.

The committee’s surprise intervention is evidence of a growing split between those responsible for managing parliament along with MPs who back the restoration project, and others who are worried about the disruption and the likelihood that costs will soar. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/29/palace-westminster-restoration-plan-andrew-tyrie-treasury-select-committee-specialist-consultants

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Transparency

Just poor grammar in the Sidmouth Herald? …

In its piece on EDDC being forced to publish the PegasusLife contract for The Knowle, it concludes:

“… Mr Woodward had previously challenged EDDC in 2015 when it refused to comply with Freedom of Information requests, also on its relocation. The eight-month legal battle saw EDDC blasted as ‘discourteous and unhelpful’ and cost taxpayers £11,000 in lawyers’ fees.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/revealed_how_eddc_reached_7_5m_deal_for_sidmouth_hq_1_4866174

What is not made crystal clear is that it was the JUDGE in the case – the judge in the case, Judge Brian Kennedy QC – who made this remark, not Mr Woodward.

In fact the full sentence read:

“Correspondence on behalf of the council, rather than ensuring the tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/judge-tells-east-devon-councillors-classified/story-26559459-detail/story.html

Sloppy, Sidmouth Herald, very, very sloppy.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

(First and second) jobs for the boys – easy when watchdog has no teeth

“A Whitehall watchdog was accused of an extraordinary cover-up last night over the lucrative investment job given to George Osborne’s former top aide.

Rupert Harrison, nicknamed ‘the real Chancellor’ when he was Mr Osborne’s chief-of-staff, got a six-figure salary to work for asset management firm BlackRock two years ago.

But now it has emerged that the official appointments committee, Acoba, was reprimanded for approving the job without disclosing meetings he held with the firm while he worked for the ex-chancellor.

An investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office into the apparent cover-up denounced Acoba for a ‘shortfall in public interest transparency’. And last night Labour MP John Mann said: ‘The advisory committee is not fit for purpose and its chair must now resign.

‘There is far too much cosying up to banks. It is as if BlackRock had taken shares in the Treasury.’

The row comes as Mr Osborne himself faces controversy over his new job with BlackRock, which will pay him more than £200,000 a year to work as an adviser while he is still an MP.

His appointment was also waved through by Acoba and there are growing calls for reform of the committee and the rules surrounding MPs and second jobs.

Acoba is supposed to vet ministers and senior civil servants when they take jobs in the private sector. In the past eight years it has looked at more than 370 appointments without blocking a single one. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162438/Heads-roll-Osborne-storm.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Economy, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Tax avoidance, Transparency

One tax for the rich and one for the poor … and guess who wins out

“Britain’s wealthiest people appear to get preferential treatment from HM Revenue & Customs and are not being properly pursued for outstanding tax bills, parliament’s spending watchdog has concluded.

HMRC’s failure to clamp down on rich tax dodgers is undermining confidence in the whole system, the public accounts committee said.

The highly critical report released on Friday examined HMRC’s specialist unit, which collects tax from high net-worth individuals with more than £20m. It found that “the amount of tax paid by this very wealthy group of individuals has actually fallen by £1bn since the unit was set up” in 2009 – even as tax receipts rose to £23bn.

Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said HMRC’s claims about the success of its strategy to deal with the very wealthy did not add up.

“Cosy terms such as ‘customer relationship manager’ and HMRC’s reluctance to be open add to the picture of arrangements that, while beyond the reach of ordinary taxpayers, are also ill-suited to the increasingly sophisticated methods the super rich can use to reduce the tax they pay,” she said.

“If the public are to have faith in the tax system then it must be seen to have fairness at its heart. It also needs to work properly. In our view, HMRC is failing on both counts.”

Tax officials calculated that there were about 6,500 high net-worth people in 2015-16, about one in every 5,000 taxpayers. In 2009, a specialist unit was set up to bring in more money from them.

MPs questioned the role of the specialist unit and some of its practices.

“We were not convinced by [HMRC’s] assertion that there is a clear line between giving its view on potential transactions and giving tax advice and we do not think there is enough clarity about what customer relationship managers can and cannot do,” the report says.

The committee pointed out that advice from officials to wealthy taxpayers was not recorded. “While calls from most taxpayers to HMRC call centres are recorded routinely, meetings and phone calls with high net-worth individuals are not recorded,” the report says.

The committee also highlighted concerns about “potential abuse” of image rights by top footballers and entertainers to minimise their tax liabilities. It confirmed that HMRC had “open inquiries” relating to the use of image rights by 43 footballers, 12 clubs and eight agents.

Committee members said they were appalled to learn that not all clubs were providing HMRC with the data it required under the terms of a voluntary agreement with the Premier League.

However, they praised HMRC’s managers for trying take action against the clubs. “We were encouraged by the evidence HMRC’s senior management gave to the committee on image rights and we look forward to news of meaningful action in this area.”

HMRC said the pursuit of high net-worth individuals had resulted in the collection of an additional £2.5bn in revenues. But it was unable to explain why the income tax they paid fell by 20% – from £4.5bn in 2009-10 to £3.5bn in 2014-15 – when the overall income tax take rose to £23bn.

The committee said about a third of the individuals concerned were likely to be under inquiry by HMRC for unpaid tax – with cases with a potential value of £1.9bn currently under investigation.

However, the report found HMRC had a “dismal record” when it came to prosecuting the very wealthy for tax fraud in the criminal courts.

In the five years to 31 March 2016, it completed just 72 fraud investigations into high net-worth individuals, with all but two having been dealt with using its civil powers. Only one case resulted in a successful criminal prosecution.

Of the 850 penalties issued to the very wealthy since 2012, the average charge was £10,500 – a figure the committee said was likely to be too small to act as a deterrent.

The problem was likely to become more acute because wealthy people were moving from off-the-peg tax avoidance schemes – the “high street equivalent of Primark or Next” – to bespoke “made-to-measure Savile Row” arrangements, the report says.

An HMRC spokesperson denied there was preferential treatment for the rich: “There is absolutely no special treatment for the wealthy and, in fact, we give them additional scrutiny, with one-to-one marking by HMRC’s specialist tax collectors to ensure that they pay everything they owe, just like the rest of us do. We have secured an additional £2.5bn from the very wealthiest since 2010.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/uks-super-rich-appear-to-get-special-deal-from-hmrc-says-watchdog?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other