From Save Our Hospital Services Facebook page:
“Question: The Case for Change document on which both the so-called ‘Success Regime’ and the STP are based was produced by a private-owned health service consultancy, Carnall Farrar which received £335,000 in consultancy fees
Is this the same company of which Dame Ruth Carnall is a founding partner and who is now the ‘independent Chair of the so-called ‘Success Regime’?”
“Councils are ‘keeping a foot in the door’ on Devon and Somerset devolution deal
Bid for devolved powers is ‘still on track’ but fresh concerns raised about amount of money being offered to take on new responsibilities.
Councils are still working together to broker a devolution deal for Devon and Somerset, according to North Devon Council leader Des Brailey.
Efforts to devolve powers to the two regions has hit a critical stage in recent weeks after the Government revealed its preference for an elected major – and after it emerged that Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay were exploring opportunities to launch a rival bid.
But speaking following a crunch meeting with other Heart of the South West (HotSW) partners in Cullompton on Friday, Mr Brailey said that while the rival bid had the potential to ‘weaken’ the HotSW bid, he thought the process was ‘still on track’.
“We agreed to set up a joint committee and continue working together to see how best we can look at the issues facing Devon and Somerset,” he said.
“Nothing is moving forward at the moment but I’d like to think we are still on track; it’s more a case of keeping our foot in the door.”
But Mr Brailey reiterated his opposition for an elected mayor and voiced fresh concerns that the money being offered to successful bids might not be sufficient.
“As we understand it the Government is offering £15million in other areas with an elected mayor and that’s clearly not a lot of money when spread between 22 authorities.
“Even if they doubled it to £30m it is still not a lot of money.
“The Government will say here is your money and these are your new responsibilities. That’s not a problem if the money matches the responsibilities and gives you an opportunity to run things better for the community.
“But I fear that the money won’t be sufficient for North Devon to carry out the Government’s wishes.”
And Mr Brailey said there could be even less money without an elected mayor.
“The stakes have changed very slightly,” he said.
“It’s now being suggested that without an elected mayor we won’t get a lot out of it.
“I think it would disenfranchise our area – there is no chance it would be a mayor from northern Devon.
“He or she will be able to make their own decisions that may or may not be of benefit to us. I believe we would be a poor relation.
“And we are talking about a fourth level of local government and clearly people are going to ask what’s going on – it’ll be another tier of government complete with an entourage.”
The devolution bid would see the creation of a new body to take decisions on issues such as transport, education and health at a regional level and not a national one.
Together, the 17 local authorities, both national parks, the local enterprise partnership and all three clinical commissioning groups submitted a Prospectus for Productivity to the Government last year.
In October, they gave their in-principle approval to set up a combined authority to support the deal and the creation of a joint committee is seen as a precursor to a new combined authority.
Also speaking following Friday’s meeting, Devon County Council leader John Hart said: “All the leaders agreed on Friday to ask their councils to support the creation of a joint committee to drive this plan forward.
“It was re-emphasised that we need a strong regional voice to ensure the Government delivers the resources we require to improve our roads, rail and other infrastructure so we can boost productivity and enhance the job opportunities and living conditions of our people.”
Reposted comment on the new that the CEO of our Local Enterprise Partnership is in line for a 26% salary increase:
“Two of the many things we don’t know about our LEP are: how many staff our £90,729 pa (current pay rate now under review) Chief Executive, Chris Garcia, manages? Or what the staff bill and administrative costs are? Nation Audit Office (NAO) believes median number of full time equivalent staff across the country is eight.
The initial intention was that LEPs should be self-funding from private enterprise. In the event these funds did not materialise for the first LEPs to emerge, but imagine the expectations this funding mechanism could have generated amongst the “donor” community.
In a 2016 report the NAO says: “The Department [Department for Communities and Local Government] provides LEPs with £500,000 in core funding for administrative purposes, subject to LEPs securing £250,000 in match funding from local partners. All LEPs received the same core funding, regardless of size or structure.”
So there is really quite a lot of cash in the kitty to spend on “administrative purposes” (maybe it is even ring fenced for such purposes and if the CE and staff don’t get it, it disappears back to the Treasury?).
One of the reasons the Coalition announced in their 2010 White Paper the eventual abolition of Regional Development Agencies and their replacement by LEPs was because the current system was not seen to be delivering. So it is slightly surprising to see that Chris Garcia is a one-time “Director of Enterprise and Skills at the South West Regional Development Agency”.
We know it wasn’t Devon County Council- they are quoted as saying they will object. It doesn’t seem it is Somerset County Council as DCC mentions that it believes they will also object.
So, we have a very strange situation where the CEO’s of the two counties involved seem to have no power over the people who are supposed to work on behalf of the two counties.
If enough other board members (including our own Paul Diviani) agree, presumably the increase will go ahead.
Remember, this money will not come out of their own budgets but from us, the taxpayers – and we have NEVER been asked if we agree to this.
“The leader of Devon County Council has criticised a proposed pay rise of more than 26% for the head of a government-backed regional business partnership.
Devon County Council will be voting against the pay rise for the chief executive of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, which is tasked with bringing prosperity to the region.
Businesses, local authorities and universities from across Devon and Somerset are represented on the LEP board.
The vote at the partnership’s board meeting next Tuesday, January 17, will be on a whether to increase the pay package of Chris Garcia, the chief executive, from £90,729 to £115,000.
A spokesman for Devon County Council said they anticipated that the Somerset County Council representative at the meeting would take the same stance.
Devon council leader John Hart said his vote was not personal but was on principle.
“As a local authority subject to significant government cuts, I cannot support a pay rise of 25% for any high-level official,” he said.
“It is clear the CEO does a good job and the LEP has brought many millions of pounds into the Devon economy [not verified as no figures available]. But there has to be recognition of the tight financial times in which we live.”
The Heart of the South West LEP is a business-led partnership of four county and unitary authorities, 15 district authorities, four universities and 10 FE colleges across Devon, Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay.”
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/lep-boss-in-line-for-26-pay-rise/story-30056532-detail/story.html
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond took a stake in a food technology business shortly before it received a government grant to develop low fat ready meals.
According to records at Companies House, Mr Hammond took a stake of 15 per cent in Hydramach, a food tech company based in Cambridgeshire, in October 2015 when he was still Foreign Secretary. In April 2016, the company received a share of a £560,000 grant from Innovate UK, a tech start up agency of the then Business department.
The Daily Telegraph reported that the grant was to develop low fat and low sugar soups, ready meals and sauces. Mr Hammond was appointed Chancellor by new Prime Minister Theresa May in July. …”
That was a lucky guess wasn’t it! Of all the shares in all the world, he had to choose that one …
Just before Christmas, we read that three local authorities ( including Plymouth and Exeter) were pulling out of the Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership (comprising the whole of Devon and Somerset). They intended to form their own LEP – the so-called “Golden Triangle LEP”:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/12/13/the-extorply-lep-talks-continue/
We assume that, partly, this was because those authorities were not convinced that a “Devset” super-mayor (a requirement for government funding – and quite possibly from Somerset) would not adequately represent their interests.
Since then we have heard absolutely nothing about the situation from either side.
Is the “Golden Triangle LEP” still on the cards?
Have the local authorities which want to break away formally withdrawn?
If not, do they intend to withdraw and when?
If so, what happens to current funds held by the LEP on their behalf?
Are we having a Devset super-mayor or not?
When (if ever) will electors be consulted – and about what?
Will Devon continue to subsidise heavy HOTSW LEP investment in Hinkley C that, despite promises, shows little knock-on benefit to our county?
And when will Somerset County Council (as the chosen lead authority for scrutiny – though chosen by whom we do not know) be subject to scrutiny (or scrutinising itself) about where our money has gone, is going, and will go?
As if you needed evidence of stonewalling and lack of transparency, here is an extract from minutes of Full Council meeting last week.
Although the Chairman (Stuart Hughes) could see that the speakers were questioning officers and councillors – indeed he asked the CEO to respond to questions, CEO Mark Williams neatly sidestepped the request by calling what people had said as “statements.
MORAL OF THIS STORY: MAKE SURE YOU ASK CONCRETE CLEAR QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT ANSWERS – AS OTHERWISE THE CEO WILL ACT AS IF YOU DON’T WANT ANY ANSWERS!
And would developers who give statements at Development Management Committee meetings be told they would not get answers as they had not asked a specific question in their submission?
“*46 Public speaking
The Chairman welcomed those present and invited members of the public to speak to the Council.
Sally Galsworthy spoke on the Queen’s Drive development making reference to the one remaining developer involved in the project and commenting on the risks should that developer pull out. She spoke of the anger of the residents in Exmouth towards the project expressed at meetings, the town poll and on a recent march, which had been attended by some 400 people.
Laura Freeman made reference to the outcome of the recent town poll seeking additional independent consultation on the redevelopment of Queen’s Drive. She considered that despite the restricted opening times of the poll, there had been a good turnout and that the outcome should be honoured and not ignored. She requested that the whole project be reviewed with a new outline application reflecting what the people of Exmouth wished to see for the area.
Jane Ashton spoke on the costs relating to both the Queen’s Drive development and relocation and also made reference to the collection of Section 106 and CIL contributions. She considered that the failure to foresee the additional costs involved in both projects was the result of the incompetence of those involved and that they should be removed from their positions. In respect of Queen’s Drive she commented that it would cost the Council less if it was to start the whole project from scratch.
Alec Huett advised that he had attended many meetings in the past regarding the regeneration of Exmouth and that Queen’s Drive had never been seen as a priority. He queried why the masterplan had changed so much from what had first been envisaged and commented that the plans would split the town into two leisure and retail zones. He advised that he was against any large development on the sea front when it should be the town centre that was the priority for regeneration works.
Richard Thurlow spoke on the increased costs relating to the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall – which would now cost more that refurbishing the Knowle. He advised that there was no detail or adequate rationale to explain the reasons for the increased costs and therefore did not consider that Members could make their decision based on fact.
Tony Green spoke on the Development Management Committee meeting held on 6 December and congratulated the Committee on their decision regarding the Knowle site. He stated that the Committee had to make their decision on material planning considerations only and therefore any comments relating to the relocation project or the adequacy of the existing building for its purpose should have been disregarded to avoid the appearance of bias. He asked for confirmation that this was the case and if so, asked that members of the committee be reminded of this.
The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to respond to QUESTIONS [Owl’s capitals] raised by the speakers. In response to the first five speakers, the Chief Executive advised that no questions had been asked and therefore they would be noted as statements, however he advised that some of the issues raised were covered in the Cabinet minutes.
In response to the last speaker, the Chief Executive advised that information was often submitted by the applicant giving reasons for a proposal – the key issue was that when the Committee came to vote they only did so on relevant material planning considerations and not immaterial planning considerations.”
A press release from “Save Exmouth Seafront”:
“Councillor Skinner’s initiative with the previously unknown ‘Exmouth Creative Group’
Councillor Skinner, Chair of the secretive Exmouth Regeneration Board has threatened to ignore both the Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) Group and the Exmouth public as he goes to a previously unheard of group of elites for their opinion on the seafront.
In recent months Cllr Skinner has repeatedly avoided engaging with the Exmouth public. He has been avoiding a public Q&A meeting and stated at the East Devon District Council (EDDC) Full Council meeting of 21/12/16 that independent consultation with the public, as requested in the Town Poll, will not happen.
It has now come to light that while Cllr Skinner consistently refuses to engage with the Exmouth public he has meanwhile been in contact with the previously unheard of ‘Exmouth Creative Group’ and asked them to ‘create a vision for Exmouth’, and ‘develop proposals to deliver this vision’. Spokesperson for SES, Louise MacAllister reacted to this news:
“When I heard that Cllr Skinner was seeking the opinion of Exmouth residents regarding the future of the Exmouth Seafront I was really pleased. This is exactly what SES have been requesting through an open and independent consultation.
However I soon learned that Cllr Skinner is liaising only with a group called the ‘Exmouth Creative Group’. There are many established community groups in Exmouth with an interest in the seafront who have not been asked for their opinion.
The ‘Exmouth Community Group’ does not appear to pre-exist Cllr Skinner’s contact with the group. This is concerning as the Exmouth public made themselves very clear through the Town Poll that they want to be consulted, and yet the public are now being ignored in favour of this unknown group.
It is an incredibly disappointing stance from the Chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Board who consistently ignores my emails and fails to live up to the responsibility of his role”.
SES asked the following questions of Cllr Skinner with regards to the Exmouth Creative Group:
– What criteria did you use when selecting potential groups to communicate with?
– Why does this one group get to play a role when you are so dismissive of majority opinion?
– Who is in this group and how does one become a member?
– Why did you select a previously unknown group for this important task?
– With whom in the ‘Exmouth Creative Group’ did you broker your links?
In response Cllr Skinner rudely dismissed the questions posed with the bizarre statement that he is:
“Not a delegate, I am a councillor and am certainly not in the business of responding to you within your time scales or even at all if I so choose.”
So just as Cllr Skinner has dismissed the opinions of the wider Exmouth public, he has made it clear he will respond to a key community group only if he so chooses, and in doing so makes it clear that he does not value the group, or the wider public that SES strive to represent. Meanwhile, he has gone to an unknown group with a brief to design a vision for Exmouth Seafront.
SES strongly welcome the opportunity for the people of Exmouth to feed into ideas on the future of the seafront but not when it is conducted behind closed doors and solely with a previously unknown group who are seemingly as secretive as the Exmouth Regeneration Board members themselves.”
Conspiracy theorists and fake news enthusiasts are already saying that this was organised to make Trump look good – hhhm! And can we see parallels here – nationally and locally?
“WASHINGTON ―
After a torrent of bad headlines, countless phone calls to member offices, and two tweets from President-elect Donald Trump, House Republicans dropped their plans to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics Tuesday, just minutes before the House was set to gavel in for the 115th Congress and adopt their rules package for the next two years.
The amendment ― authored by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) ― would have placed the independent congressional ethics office under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee, changed the OCE’s name and barred the office from releasing reports to the public. In effect, it would have neutered Congress’ most aggressive watchdog.
The decision to strip the Goodlatte amendment came just before noon on Tuesday as Republicans planned to begin the 115th Congress. Earlier in the day, responding to numerous news reports about Republicans gutting the OCE, Trump asked in a tweet whether Republicans really had to make the “weakening” of the ethics office their first order of business, though he also didn’t necessarily come out against the idea of eventually overhauling the OCE.
Ethics groups were quick to criticize House Republicans for the effort. A coalition of groups including the Campaign for Accountability, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the League of Women Voters sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday calling for the reauthorization of the OCE.
Several other groups, including the conservative Judicial Watch, called the move “shameful.” The nonpartisan group Common Cause even pointed out that exactly 11 years ago, lobbyist Jack Abramoff ― whose crimes helped lead to the creation of the OCE ― pleaded guilty to charges including fraud conspiracy and tax evasion. (Abramoff told Politico Tuesday that Republican’s efforts to gut the ethics watchdog are “exactly the opposite of what Congress should be doing.”)
Members reported that they had started getting a flood of phone calls from constituents concerned that Congress was neutering a key ethics watchdog.
“The calls we’ve gotten in my district office and here in Washington has surprised me, meaning the number of calls,” said Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who noted before the amendment was stripped that he would vote against the rules package if it remained in the measure. “People are just sick and tired.”
Some Republicans, including South Carolina Reps. Trey Gowdy and Mark Sanford, were reporting Tuesday that they would vote against the typically party-line rules package.
Facing public pressure and an internal mutiny, GOP leadership called a special meeting and told Republicans they needed to strip the OCE amendment.
Leaders told members they would instead work with Democrats to come up with a proposal to reform the OCE before the August recess, though a number of Republicans were unsatisfied by the promise.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he would now work to completely abolish the Office of Congressional Ethics, citing concerns over anonymous whistleblowers making accusations against members and the OCE leaking information to the press.
Asked to provide an example of the OCE leaking information to the press, King failed to come up with one and got testy.
“Just google it,” he said.
Pelosi issued a statement after the amendment was dropped, noting the “clear contempt for ethics in the People’s House” that she said Republicans showed with their plan.
“Once again, the American people have seen the toxic dysfunction of a Republican House that will do anything to further their special interest agenda, thwart transparency and undermine the public trust,” she added. “Republicans should remember the strength of public outrage they faced in the space of 12 hours as they scheme to do lasting damage to the health and economic security of millions and millions of hard-working families.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-republicans-ethics_us_586bdb14e4b0de3a08f99e66?
“Us Versus Them – The New World”, Radio 4, tomorrow 9 am:
“Political movements which proclaim themselves as anti-elitist challengers to the mainstream establishment have been achieving success, from Brexit campaigners to Donald Trump and various European parties.
John Harris explores the reasons behind this international phenomenon, examines the motivating forces for the anxiety and anger of voters, and considers the response of the political establishment in this new era.”
To be followed same time next week by:
“It’s the Demography, Stupid!
The New World
How is population change transforming our world?
Think of a python swallowing a pig: a big bulge makes its way slowly down the snake from the head end to the other end. That’s a bit like what’s happened to the UK demographically.
The baby boom generation – which has changed Britain politically, culturally and economically – is now retiring. That means a large bulge of pensioners with big implications for the generations that come behind them. Other advanced economies face a similar challenge and emerging economies – most notably China – will be dealing with an ageing bulge themselves soon.
But in Africa, the bulge is at the other end. A very young generation is about to make its way through the snake.
Former government minister David Willetts, now executive chair of the Resolution Foundation, wrestles with this python of population change.
What will these challenges of both ageing and very young populations mean for the world?
What are the implications for future migration patterns, for geopolitics and for global economic growth?
This programme is part of a special week of programmes for the first week of 2017, examining major forces which are changing the world around us.”
Well, we know all about this in Devon – we could probably give Trump some tips!
“House Republicans have gutted an independent ethics watchdog, putting it under their own control, in a secret ballot hours before the new Congress convened for the first time.
The unheralded vote severely weakens the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which was set up after a lobbying scandal in 2008 to investigate corruption allegations against members of Congress. The move, led by the head of the House judiciary committee, defied the Republican congressional leadership and was reportedly supported by several legislators currently under OCE scrutiny.
The amendment was voted through by the House Republican conference over the New Year’s holiday with no prior notice or debate and inserted in a broad rules package the House will vote for on Tuesday. It turns the formerly independent OCE into the Office of Congressional Complaint Review, a subordinate body to the House Ethics Committee, which is currently run by the Republican majority and has a long history of overlooking charges of malfeasance by lawmakers.
The new body will not be able to receive anonymous tips from members of Congress or make its findings public.
The vote comes at a time when the Republicans control all three branches of government and are seeking to remove some of the residual constraints on their powers. The rules package to be voted through on Tuesday, for example, will limit the ability of the Democratic minority to block legislation like the repeal of Obama’s Affordable Care Act by staging a filibuster.
It also comes at a time when president-elect Trump is attempting to fend off scrutiny over multiple conflicts of interests questions arising from his bid to keep his business empire in his family’s hands even after he takes office on 20 January.
The House Republican vote triggered a wave of outrage from Democrats and government ethics specialists.
“Undermining the independence of the House’s Office of Congressional Ethics would create a serious risk to members of Congress, who rely on OCE for fair, nonpartisan investigations, and to the American people, who expect their representatives to meet their legal and ethical obligations,” Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, ethics counsels to Barack Obama and George W Bush respectively, argued in a joint statement.
“If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining OCE it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated.”
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, said: “Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Pelosi said in a statement.
“Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”
Goodlatte defended the vote.
“The amendment builds upon and strengthens the existing Office of
Congressional Ethics by maintaining its primary area of focus of accepting and reviewing complaints from the public and referring them, if appropriate, to the Committee on Ethics,” the judiciary committee chairman said in a statement.
Goodlatte did not explain how the OCE had been strengthened by being stripped of its independence and stopped from making public statements.
The OCE was set up in 2008 after a string of corruption scandals involving two Republican politicians and a Democrat. Former congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a California Republican, served more than seven years in prison on bribery and other charges.
Ohio Republican congressman Bob Ney pleaded guilty to corruption charges and a Louisiana Democrat and former congressman, William Jefferson, was convicted on corruption in a separate case.”
“Questions remain over East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) relocation project – amid rising costs and claims of a lack of transparency.
The authority has been accused of pushing ahead with the move away from Sidmouth to Honiton and Exmouth ‘at any cost’ after it approved adding nearly £700,000 to the bill.
Councillor Cathy Gardner last week argued proper scrutiny of the project cannot be achieved as long as documents are not made public. She also raised concerns about members being asked to endorse decisions relating to a contract – between the would-be developer of Knowle and the council – they have not even seen.
In response, EDDC leader Paul Diviani said the contract with PegasusLife is ‘commercially confidential’, but admitted that the developer could potentially ‘renegotiate’ a price for the site after its bid to build a retirement community was refused.
At a full council meeting last Wednesday, Cllr Gardner accused Cllr Diviani of failing to answer her questions and pressed for an answer on whether the contract with PegasusLife has an expiry date. Cllr Diviani said: “We have to wait to hear from PegasusLife. They have the option of coming through with re-submission, or appealing, and we will see what happens there.
“We will work to get the best possible result we can, but if it happens that the deal falls apart, then we will move forward.”
Cllr Gardner asked for reassurance that the £7.5million PegasusLife has agreed to pay could not be renegotiated.
Cllr Diviani said: “If the circumstances are such, then quite obviously they will be able to renegotiate, but let’s not have speculation about what’s going to happen, let’s have a decent dialogue with PegasusLife so we know exactly where we are going from here.”
Cllr Diviani refuted claims that EDDC’s approach to transparency involves releasing only documents relating to relocation that ‘no-one is interested in seeing and holding on to the rest’.
He said: “Documents will be released in due course. They are coming through on a fairly regular basis and it does take time to pull them all together, but they will be expedited as soon as they possibly can.”
Resident Richard Thurlow spoke out about increased costs relating to the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall ahead of relocation – which, he says, would now cost more than renovating the existing Knowle offices.
He claimed that there was no detail or adequate rationale to explain the reasons for the increased costs.”
It appears that the “Heart of the South West LEP is dead in the water now that three of its original members have refused to continue to back it and instead are considering their own grouping – the south-west “Golden Triangle” LEP.
Which brings us to that age-old concern: the money. Where did the HOTSW LEP money come from, where was it spent and now, more importantly, what is happening to it now that several big players – who originally underwrote it – have pulled out?
How do we find out [what little there is] – where is the paper trail and where does its “accountability” reside?
This correspondence with the National Audit Office gives some clues:
[Concerns have been raised] about lack of transparency around contracts and spending.
As part of the assurance framework each local enterprise partnership has a nominated local authority that acts as its accountable body, and Somerset County Council (the Council) is the accountable body for the Heart of the South West LEP.
You could therefore consider bringing the matters to the attention of the Council themselves.
Alternatively you may wish to consider bringing the matters to the attention of the Councils external auditor. For this Council, the appointed auditor is Grant Thornton UK LLP.
The engagement lead for the audit is Peter Barber, who can be contacted at peter.a.berber@uk.gt.com or on 0117 305 7897. You should be aware, however, that the NAO has no powers to direct the auditor take further action, as that is a matter of professional judgement to be exercised by the external auditor themselves.
If you are a local elector for the [Somerset?] Council, you also have rights in relation to inspecting and objecting to the Councils accounts, if you feel this appropriate. The NAO has produced Council accounts: A guide to your rights, which sets out these rights in more detail. The guide can be accessed from the link or from our website home page”.”
Council tax payers of Somerset – arise. You, and we, surely have many questions of the council (or better still its external auditors) as to where your (Somerset) and our (Devon and, in particular for us, East Devon) money is going now that the HOTSW LEP has had at least one of its legs cut off.
Have its fingers been cut off? Is the till snapped shut and locked?
Unlikely.
The Guardian view on English local identities: a clash of cash against community
Editorial
A court case about whether Chesterfield can leave Derbyshire to become part of Sheffield [Local Enterprise Partnership] illuminates the inexorable wasting of English local government and identity.
Is Derbyshire in the north of England or the Midlands? The question is as old as the redrawing of the map of England following the Norman conquest. But it is no longer such a parochial or academic question as it may seem. Derbyshire’s dilemmas now illuminate what we mean by local democracy and local government in England more generally. That’s because the promotion of English city regions and the money being directed towards the northern powerhouse by the Treasury in London are making a nonsense of historic local identities as well as of England’s long but increasingly derelict traditions of locally rooted democratic municipalism.
Just before Christmas, the high court backed an objection by Derbyshire county council against efforts by Chesterfield, which is in the north of the county, to attach itself to the emerging city region of Sheffield, which comprises Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster, which are all historically part of the various iterations of Yorkshire, its ridings and its more modern subdivisions.
The court did this after Derbyshire complained that if Chesterfield were permitted to redefine itself as part of Sheffield, it would raise the question of whether the county of Derbyshire could be said to exist at all without its second largest town. The county’s case was reinforced by the fact that Chesterfield district has no actual border with Sheffield, from which it is separated by part of the North East Derbyshire district. If Chesterfield were to join Sheffield, it would become an enclave (or, from Sheffield’s viewpoint, an exclave) within its former county. It would be the Nagorno-Karabakh of the east Midlands, leaving the map of Derbyshire resembling nothing so much as a Barbara Hepworth sculpture.
From a financial rather than an identity perspective, Chesterfield’s move makes a certain sort of sense. Faced with continuing financial pressures to cut, sell off or simply abandon swaths of local government services that have existed for generations, English local authorities inevitably clutch at any cash straws they can. The city regions are one of the few straws on offer. They are due to receive £30m in new funding a year and to acquire new freedoms to shape local transport, planning and economic policy.
It is hardly surprising that Chesterfield’s defection was hatched and promoted at the council level, since councillors and council officers are in the frontline of struggling with these austerity-driven realities every day. While the councils did their deal, Chesterfield and Derbyshire opinion was barely considered, the high court ruled, so it must now be properly consulted and taken into account before any decision is taken. An online poll organised by the county council in August, five months after Chesterfield decided to join Sheffield, found 92% of respondents opposed to the move.
That is almost certainly because, for all its proximity to Sheffield, there has never been any serious tradition of Chesterfield regarding itself as part of Greater Sheffield, or of Sheffield seeing Chesterfield as part of South Yorkshire. Chesterfield is today what it has always been, an important town in north-east Derbyshire, famous for the twisted spire of its St Mary’s church, and for having had Tony Benn as its MP in the later period of his parliamentary career. Its possible marriage to the Sheffield city region is overwhelmingly rooted in perceived economic advantage rather than in history or public sentiment. The high court has therefore pitted economic survival against identity and democracy.
The Chesterfield-Sheffield question is of far more than local interest. Local identity matters everywhere. It is tenacious. It runs deeper than the economic or administrative convenience of a bureaucrat’s pen. County identities are medieval in origin but they lurk on in many modern consciousnesses. Ministers mess with them at their peril.
The argument about Derbyshire has only arisen because English local government is in such a desperate state. Austerity in the 2010s is completing the centralisation of local powers begun in the 1980s. Communities like Chesterfield are reduced to scrabbling for a share of the Treasury’s parachute drop of cash to the city regions.
Ministers may talk of a new era of municipal greatness, but it is a hollow sham as long as local authorities lack effective income-raising powers. Unless and until English devolution is reconceived as regions made up from existing counties, cities and boroughs, these arguments will continue, pitting community identity and democracy against economic inequalities and distortions enforced from Whitehall.”
Louise MacAllister, Spokesperson, Save Exmouth Seafront gives her view on the contest. Owl will be happy to publish Councillor Skinner’s riposte if received:
Cllr Skinner, Chair, Exmouth Regeneration Board:
Other points:
“Local councils, including Exeter and Mid Devon, have been authorised to conduct covert surveillance, a freedom of information request has revealed.
The request, sent to all local authorities in the country by the Liberal Democrats, found two-thirds of those that responded had used powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to gather evidence.
Designed to fight terrorism and serious crime, Ripa is not supposed to be used for trivial purposes and should only be utilised if criminal activity was suspected. …
… East Devon District Council was one of those that did not respond.”
Remember Diviani telling us his Tory council would be “clean, green and seen”? Seems it remains pale, male, stale – and secretive.
Our Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership has put almost all OUR eggs into its nuclear egg basket. Not surprising when several of its board members have direct or indirect nuclear interests.
“Toshiba, the technology company at the centre of plans to build more nuclear reactors in Britain, is looking for outside help to fund its £8bn programme after a collapse in its share price.
The Japanese group is in talks with local financial institutions to support the construction of an atomic plant near the Sellafield facility in Cumbria, after running up losses following an accounting scandal.
The emergence of Toshiba’s problems will add to worries over Britain’s nuclear plans after the French energy group EDF, which plans to build the Hinkley Point C station in Somerset, dropped out of France’s CAC 40 index of leading shares.
There is widening concern in the City about the escalating costs of huge nuclear projects, which are damaging company share valuations and undermining the government’s commitment to new nuclear at a time when it has promised to phase out coal-fired power stations.
“It has become difficult for Toshiba to do this (fund the NuGen programme in the north-west of England) on its own,” one source told Reuters, which reported that Toshiba had hired HSBC bank to help find new funds.
On Monday, the Japanese financial regulator recommended that Toshiba be fined 7.37bn yen (£40m) for overstating profits and the share price of the company is down 40% since the start of the year.
Toshiba is a 60% shareholder in the NuGen project to build 3.4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity close to the Sellafield plant, where spent fuel is reprocessed.
Neither Toshiba nor NuGen, a partnership with Engie (formerly GDF Suez) of France, was available for comment. The cost of building three reactors designed by a Toshiba subsidiary, Westinghouse, was estimated two years ago at £8bn but experts believe that figure could have at least doubled. That is in line with the price tag for Hinkley, which EDF puts at £18bn.
The 3.2GW Somerset reactors, to be built by EDF with the help of Chinese state companies, have been given the go-ahead by the UK government but the project is awaiting the final investment decision from France.
This week EDF blamed the 85% holding by the French state and lack of free float shares for its removal from the CAC index. But many analysts in the City of London have released gloomy equity forecasts on EDF, fearing Hinkley might go over budget like the company’s Flamanville reactor project in Normandy.”
“Theresa May’s government has been accused of changing the rules on public appointments to make it easier in future for ministers to pick their political allies for senior jobs at the BBC and regulators such as Ofsted.
The new code on public appointments will give ministers greater powers over who oversees a raft of agencies, watchdogs and advisory committees, while weakening the involvement of the independent commissioner for public appointments, who scrutinises the system.
Labour said the changes, which will come into force on 1 January, represent a “power grab” by ministers and risk returning to the days of patronage and cronyism in public life.
Ministers have always had the final say over appointments to senior public sector jobs, advised by a panel that shortlists “appointable” people. However, independent assessors, chosen by the commissioner to oversee the most important competitions, will be abolished in favour of independent senior panel members picked by ministers.
Labour warns of return to cronyism amid public appointments review
The members will have to be independent of the departments and not currently politically active, but the commissioner will only have a consultative role.
Ministers will also be able to overrule the panel by choosing candidates not deemed to be appointable and have the right to dispense with an open competition without the permission of the commissioner, although they will have to consult with the watchdog and openly justify the decision. …”
East Devon Alliance and other Independent councillors show their mettle – Tories show their inadequacy.
There was a distinct lack of seasonal goodwill last night at the full meeting of East Devon District Council which was well attended by the public.
Four speakers from Exmouth lambasted the council for the mega-shambles emerging over the development of Queen’s Drive.
There was anger that the wishes of local people for a town centre upgrade and a modest refurbishment of the seafront had been ignored. Replaced, without consultation, by a grandiose council project to commercialise the seafront with shops, a cinema and blocks of flats.
Two Sidmouth residents kept up the pressure. One questioned the financial competence of the Council with relocation costs spiralling: £600,000 more for Exmouth Town Hall, £400,000 more for Knowle.
Another asked the Chief Executive to warn planning committee councillors against bias in favour of any future application to develop the Knowle because it would advance the relocation project. This seemed to have happened at the December 6th DMC meeting, but the CEO was unconcerned.
When councillors came to quiz council leaders it was noticeable that not a single Conservative asked a question.
But there was a barrage from Independents and Lib Dems. The refrain was that the leadership never gave straight answers to questions about its accounting for public money; it was incompetent in keeping costs under control, and it kept councillors in the dark about what was happening.
East Devon Alliance Independent councillor Megan Armstrong prised out of Philip Skinner, Exmouth “regeneration” portfolio holder, the admission that there would be no independent public consultation on Queen’s Drive which over 4000 Exmouthians had voted for in a Town Poll.
Nonetheless, EDDC would be spending over £60000 to get renewed planning permission for the development.
East Devon Alliance Independent Councillor Cathy Gardner grew increasingly frustrated at Leader Paul Diviani’s failure to answer questions. Why was the contact with Pegasus life for the sale of the Knowle kept secret? Why was the project manager of the Queen’s Drive affair not sacked for “ineptitude”? And what action would be taken against the same officer who had publicly expressed personal frustration at the refusal of the Pegasus Life planning application for the Knowle?
Eileen Wragg (Lib Dem) questioned where the £3million to move the roadway in Queen’s Drive was coming from. She knew that County did not have funds ear-marked. The Chief Executive admitted that applications had gone out for funding, but nothing had been agreed yet.
Rob Longhurst (Independent) said the leadership seemed to think £600000 more on Exmouth Town Hall was “small money” that didn’t require detailed accounting. “I like to see numbers”, he added. Support came from fellow independent Roger Giles who quoted an earlier Council Leader Peter Halse who said when it came to costings it was not good enough for the council leaders to say “Just trust us”.
Finally, Cllr Longhurst, seconded by Independent Ben Ingham, proposed an amendment that councillors should be updated every six months with detailed costings of the council’s projects.
“Unnecessary!” chorused a succession of Tory councillors. They said leave it to the internal auditors Southwest Audit Partnership, forgetting, perhaps, that SWAP was strongly criticised in 2013 for an “anodyne” report on the governance implications of the Graham Brown affair which suggested it was in too cosy a relationship with Council leaders.
A vote on the amendment was lost with 30 Tory councillors voting in a block against it.
Bleating sounds could be heard coming from a member of the public!
East Devon Watch 