Sovereignty or dictatorship?

David Cameron did not discuss EU referendum with his Cabinet before he called it, claims Ken Clarke:

“David Cameron never discussed his decision to call a referendum on Britain’s membership in the European Union with his Cabinet, former Tory Cabinet minister Ken Clarke has claimed.

The 76-year-old Tory veteran criticised how Mr Cameron ran his Cabinet meetings, which he said met for 90 minutes one morning each week.

In his book, which is being serialised by The Sunday Times, Mr Clarke wrote: “This was an almost comically inadequate time within which to discuss any important subject.”

In particular, he said Mr Cameron failed to adequately discuss “his startling and catastrophic decision to call a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in cabinet”.

“… In my opinion, this is a disastrous way to run the government of a complex modern nation state,” he said. “It is a reaction to the hysterical constant 24/7 chatter that now dominates political debate.

“Media handling and public relations are now regarded as the key elements of governing, and a small army of advisers who are supposed to be PR experts but who are of frankly variable quality have far too big a role in policy-making.

“Next week’s headlines are given more priority than serious policy development and the long-term consequences for the nation.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-eu-referendum-brexit-ken-clarke-memoirs-pm-did-not-discuss-with-cabinet-a7342856.html

Yet another example of EDDC’s similarity to national government – secrecy and spin much more important than transparency and proper discussion.

Exmouth beach huts: to be or not to be? Depends whether you think the Development Management Committee makes decisions!

There is currently a planning application submitted – 16/2087/DEM to demolish the DJ’s Diner building on Exmouth Seafront.

At the DMC on 8th March Cllr Williamson (Littleham) proposed the condition (which was agreed) for the road move application that the cafe and the beach huts should not be demolished, nor any start to be made on the road, until there was a timescale, etc. for the water sports centre.

No timescale yet exists, yet the planning application seems to be completely ignoring this decision.

Unfortunately, the working that went in the final planning application is ( surprise, surprise) rather vague (approval document listed under application – 15/2487/MRES). However for those who were at the DMC, they are quite certain that the proposed condition was for no work – including demolition.

And of course there is also the issue of the town poll being ignored and EDDC ploughing ahead with leaving the area derelict regardless.

Boundaries, election boundaries, constituency statistics and more: interactive election and statistical website

Lots and lots of useful information including AONB boundaries, parliamentary constituencies, census statistics, etc.

http://www.boundaryassistant.org/PlanBuilder2018.html

How many hospital beds make 5?

Disquieting information here:

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

from ever-campaigning Claire Wright. It raises some very serious questions about where the “Success Regime” gets its ” numbers” from.

Well done Councillor Wright for not letting this slip through the net.

A Freedom of Information request needed here, methinks.

“Theresa May defends her plan to keep Brexit negotiation details secret from Parliament”

“Theresa May has defended her plan to keep key details of the EU exit negotiations secret from Britain’s Parliament.

The Prime Minister said that though MPs would be informed at “various stages”, they would not be privy to precisely what her negotiators were doing.

Last month Brexit Secretary David Davis told a Parliamentary Committee that he would “not be able to tell you everything, even in private”.

The approach is a stark contrast to the course being set by the EU, with plans reportedly being formed to keep the European Parliament informed with regular updates.

Questioned on the secrecy ahead of the Conservative party conference in Birmingham, the Prime Minister said transparency could jeopardise Britain’s negotiating position.

“First of all, of course parliament will be involved in this process. The Great Repeal Bill, Parliament will be having its say on that,” she told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

“Of course at various stages we will be keeping parliament informed. This is not about keeping silent for two years but its about making sure that we are able to negotiate, that we don’t set out all the cards in our negotiation.”

“Because as anybody will know who’s been involved in these things, if you do that up front, or if you give a running commentary you don’t get the right deal. What I’m determined to do is get the right deal for Britain.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-article-50-brexit-details-secret-parliament-david-davis-a7341266.html

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is sovereignty.

It seems she has learned well from EDDC Jedi-masters!

Just substitute Diviani for May and Morai or “Greater Exeter” or devolution deals withe the LEP for Parliament and local democracy for sovereignty and it is exactly the same situation. We don’t tell you anything at all during negotiations, we tell you almost nothing at all after negotiations and then we tell you all how to vote about the negotiations! Or maybe we don’t allow you to vote at all!

If devolution is the answer – what was the question?

Devolution doesn’t always mean taking back control

Since Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997, successive UK governments have fiddled around with ways of devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall. The most radical has been Scottish devolution, which continues to evolve. The least coherent has been the patchwork of schemes developed across England, ranging from a well-thought out arrangement for London, with a directly elected mayor and assembly, to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along “devolution deals” for the rest.

The coalition government of 2010-15 abolished – wisely – the regional governance bureaucracies. The first big replacement idea was Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), intended as “business-led” mechanisms for spending public money. The areas covered by LEPs were in some cases obvious, based for example on established city regions or former metropolitan counties. In others the rationale was less clear, perhaps nowhere more so than the Heart of the South West (HotSW) LEP, covering a massive area from Plymouth to the south of Bristol [1]. It’s tempting to think that after Cornwall decided to go their own way and Bristol wasn’t having any truck with its Somerset neighbours, that HotSW was the “bit left over”.

The performance of these fundamentally secretive and undemocratic bodies is not the focus of this post [2]. They are relevant because the LEP areas have in some cases – including HotSW – formed the basis of the subsequent devolution proposals in England.

The government has been inviting groups of local authorities to submit proposals for devolving decision-making in certain functions, particularly infrastructure and economic development, but not limited to these.

The rationale behind this approach is that increasing productivity, a key goal of government policy, is best achieved by local targeting of support measures through local authorities and business interests working together.

The government has made it clear that access to some central funding is dependent on devolution deals being agreed. Invariably, local authorities across the area commit to setting up a “combined authority” to take the decisions. Unlike London, this would not be directly elected but would be made up of the leaders of the constituent councils plus non-elected representatives of the NHS and the LEP. Initially, agreement to having a directly-elected mayor was a condition of a devolution deal but the government now seems to be less rigid on this.

One of the problems with this approach is that it was designed for large urban areas. Greater Manchester, for example, has operated as a partnership of councils across a coherent area since the 1960s when Passenger Transport Authorities were set up. Manchester is the trail-blazer in the current devolution game, and it clearly works for them.

What is less clear is that the combined authority structure will work well in those areas of England that aren’t part of a conurbation. A pretentious-sounding body called The Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England produced a report last year arguing for devolution deals for the rest of England [3].

It does make the useful point that LEP areas do not in most cases coincide with functional economic areas (a conclusion which should be enough to discredit the whole idea of LEPs), but is otherwise a typical product of this debate in that it focusses on structures and “partnerships” from which communities are largely excluded.

The councils within the HotSW area have submitted a devolution bid to the government [4]. The bid identifies 6 challenges for the area (low productivity growth, limited labour market, patchy performance in innovation and enterprise, an ageing population, health and care integration, infrastructure and connectivity) and 6 “Golden Opportunities” for improving growth and productivity (marine, nuclear, aerospace and advanced engineering, data analytics, rural productivity, health and care). The bid has a wholly economic focus: other than in references to care, the word “social” does not appear in the document, and there is no acknowledgement of the impacts of the plans on the natural environment.

If the bid succeeds – and at least some of the councils are treating the whole exercise with a degree of caution – decision-making on the plans and services covered by the bid will be sucked upwards from the councils and the people they represent. How the combined authority will balance the interests of, say, Plymouth with those of people in the Mendips will be discussed in officer-led groups behind closed doors – because that is the only way “partnership” working can be made to operate in practice. The need to prepare for joint meetings gives authority officers huge influence over agendas and decisions because of the need to coordinate positions and identify common solutions in advance of meetings.

The combined authority itself will be made up of leaders of the constituent councils and others. It will not be directly elected. Trying to influence its decisions will be next to impossible for individuals and community groups. The bid’s economic focus ignores environmental and community questions completely, so being able to provide a counter-balance is hugely important. As it is, the bid’s environmental credentials are defined by the partnership’s LEP-led role as a cheerleader for the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

Other devolution bids across England generate similar challenges. At a time when disillusion with our politics is at an all-time high, it is puzzling – to put it mildly – that decision-making is to move even further away from the people most affected

NOTES:

[1] The map of LEP areas at http://www.lepnetwork.net/the-network-of-leps/ shows just how large the area is.

[2] An excellent House of Commons briefing note (July 2016) provides a concise guide to LEPs including reviews of their performance – see http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05651.pdf

[3] See http://www.local.gov.uk/non-met-commission

[4] The bid document is at https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/files/2016/01/Heart-of-the-South-West-Devolution-Prospectus.pdf

https://petercleasby.com/2016/09/30/devolution-is-not-control/

PM must publish secret papers about refusing Brexit vote in Parliament

“The government has been forced by a senior judge to reveal secret legal arguments for refusing to let parliament decide when and how the UK should withdraw from the European Union.

In a preliminary victory for those challenging Theresa May’s power to trigger Brexit, a high court judge, Mr Justice Cranston, has swept aside restrictions on publishing official documents before the hearing on 13 October.

In the released documents, lawyers for the government argue that it is “constitutionally impermissible” for parliament to be given the authority rather than the prime minister and dismiss any notion that the devolved nations – Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – will have any say in the process”.

They add: “The appropriate point at which the UK should begin the procedure required by article 50 [of the European Union treaty] to give effect to [notifying the UK’s exit] is a matter of high, if not the highest policy.

“It is a polycentric decision based upon a multitude of domestic and foreign policy and political concerns for which the expertise of ministers and their officials are particularly well-suited and the courts ill-suited.”

Responding to the release of the skeleton arguments, John Halford, a solicitor partner at Bindmans law firm which represents the People’s Challenge, a crowd-funded group, said: “The court’s order allows a floodlight to be shone on the government’s secret reasons for believing it alone can bring about Brexit without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.

“Those who were unsettled by the government’s insistence on its defence being kept secret will now be surprised by the contents, including submissions that Brexit has nothing constitutionally to do with the Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved governments, that parliament ‘clearly understood’ it was surrendering any role it might have in Brexit by passing the EU Referendum Act, that it has no control over making and withdrawal from treaties and that individuals can have fundamental rights conferred by acts of parliament stripped away if and when the executive withdraws from the treaties on which they are based.

“These arguments will be tested in court next month, but now they can be debated by the public too.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/government-must-disclose-legal-arguments-article-50-procedure-peoples-challenge

Yet here in East Devon we are not allowed to know anything about EDDC’s negotiations with PegasusLife. Strange that.

“‘Secrecy’ over public spending exposed by Transparency International report”

“Secrecy and lack of information about UK public spending is so great that in more than a third of cases, the ordinary taxpayer can’t even know who has been awarded a Government or local authority contract, a new report has found.

Spending data was so heavily redacted, the campaign group Transparency International claimed, that in just one month a single London borough – Hackney – recorded £14 million of payments without revealing to the public who got the money.

Nationally, the Counting the Pennies report said that at least 35 per cent – more than a third – of published local and central government tender data did not even show who was awarded the contract.

Descriptions of what public authorities had purchased were, the report said, often so vague as to be “almost meaningless.”

And, it was reported, spending data was displayed in such a bewildering variety of different ways – “with 81,057 different column names used by public authorities to describe the money they have spent” – that the ordinary taxpayer trying to trace how their money was spent would be left baffled.

The result, said Duncan Hames, the director of Transparency International UK, was that people may be getting away with corruption in public office.

He said: “Open data is an essential tool in the fight against corruption. Real transparency significantly reduces hiding places for corrupt individuals and allows the public to hold the Government to account.

“There is a danger that although the Government are ticking the right boxes, the true spirit of transparency is being lost. The result is a missed opportunity to flush out questionable contacts and root out waste.”

The report analysed a total of £2.3 trillion of published transactions made by local and central government between 2011 and 2015. It concluded: “The UK has, in theory, one of the most open governments in the world, [but] the system is not working properly in practice.”

Despite Government guidelines calling for as much transparency as possible over public spending, the researchers found: “A significant amount of the transaction data that is being published appears to be redacted unnecessarily, in effect hiding the details of potentially substantial payments.”

In one London borough, which was unnamed in the report, £512 million of transactions – equivalent to 52 per cent of all transactions the council published – “were redacted so there was little information about the nature of these payments.”

The researchers put another London borough, Hackney, at the top of a ‘league table’ of public bodies ranked in terms of the highest value of transactions that were redacted in a single month.

In May 2015, the researchers claimed, Hackney recorded £14,050,025.66 spent in direct debits where the names of the suppliers paid by the council were redacted – leaving council tax payers unable to tell who had received £14 million of their money.

Difficulties in tracking how taxpayers’ money was spent, the report added, were compounded by the fact that in only 0.75 per cent of cases nationwide, (1 recorded transaction in 133), did the public body provide the unique Companies House identification number of the firm receiving its money.

Comments from Sussex University students asked to find out how councils and central government were spending taxpayers’ money by using the data they had published included: “If you’re a citizen you would simply give up.”

This was despite measures such as the UK Open Government National Action Plan, launched at the international Anti-Corruption Summit overseen by then Prime Minister David Cameron (at a time when he was under fire over his own family’s finances because of the Panama Papers leak.)

“These commitments are welcome,” the report concluded, “However it is now imperative that government works closely with civil society to make sure they are implemented in practice.”

Commenting on the £14 million spend where recipients of public money weren’t identified, a spokeswoman for Hackney Council said: “A large proportion of the figures listed were direct debit payments. We weren’t able to include the details of these payments in data collection at that time, but the value of the payments were included so that we could offer as much information as possible.

“Since April 2016, following improvements to our banking system, we have been able to provide the full details.”

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “”This Government is determined to deliver on its commitment to continue to be the most transparent government in the world and we continue to build on this.

“We are the first G7 country to have committed to the Open Contracting Data Standard on our central purchasing authority and we are now improving the quality and transparency of government grants.

“We are also improving the Freedom of Information Act, making more data available across the public sector, and will continue to make government more open.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secrecy-over-public-spending-exposed-taxpayers-money-government-corruption-where-is-taxpayers-money-a7327186.html

Conservative whip chooses councillors for Port Royal project

“During Wednesday’s meeting the cabinet agreed two Sidmouth councillors – Cllr John Dyson and
Cllr David Barratt – would represent EDDC on the group.

Councillor Phil Twiss said: “We must not forget Sidmouth is more than just a town, we have Sidford, Sidbury and Sidford rural – they will be excluded if it is just seen as an EDDC town ward councilproject.

“We want to include as many people as we can, in every way we can – we weren’t perfect in Exmouth and we have all learnt lessons from that – we have to be more open and inclusive.

“This has gone on for far too long, it seems like it has been 40 or 50 years … It is a part of the
town that is let down badly. We need to help Sidmouth Town Council go ahead with this.”

Cllr Twiss proposed they had one town council ward member on the group – Cllr John Dyson along with Cllr David Barratt, so they could have a more wider and open representation.

Cllr Dawn Manley said: “I have every faith in Cllr Barratt and Cllr Dyson but I find it extraordinary [that] the Conservative whip has chosen who they want to go forward. It makes no sense to me that the town councillors, who were voted for because of these specific issues are being
sidelined.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/cathy-gardner/20160925/cabinet-stitch-up-port-royal-representation/

Owl says: Councillor Twiss ALWAYS says he does not whip despite holding the post which would be redundant if he did not!

Now he can prove it by allowing Sidmouth councillors to choose their reps!

“Inclusive Devolution”

Here are the main points of the RSA publication referred to in the previous post:

A new policy framework to promote inclusive growth

The report proposes a policy framework based on the following elements:

Integrating economic and social policy — we argue for a model which combines economic and social policy to generate inclusive growth. That means integrating people-focused policies on skills, family support and education with economic development strategies linked to investment and industry policy.

Devolution that is social as well as economic — up until now, devolution to cities has mostly related to strategic economic functions. The next phase of devolution needs to have a much stronger social policy focus so that public service reform can support local growth.

More funding to support inclusive growth at local level — the context for devolution so far has been fiscal neutrality and austerity. The establishment of investment funds and the transfer of economic functions has been good for cities, but at the same time their overall revenue budgets have shrunk substantially. The next phase of what we call ‘grown up devolution’ will need to provide more funding for social and capital projects.

Prioritising prevention and early intervention — it is widely accepted that we spend too much on picking up the pieces of social and economic failure. Now is the time to begin the process of shifting the balance of spending towards prevention and early intervention, so that public services can support inclusive growth, rather than respond to the lack of it.

View at Medium.com

Devolution “myths” not myths at all, says Devon County Councillor

From the Facebook page of Lib Dem Councillor for Totnes, Robert Vint:

“On Monday Devon County Councillors were presented with a “Myth Busting” training session on Devolution. On Thursday there was a repeat session for South Hams District Councillors.

The “Myths” they were attempting to “bust” were that the Devolution process was led by the LEP, was undemocratic, would result in local government reorganisation / centralisation etc.

The explanations – or non-explanations – only strengthened my concerns. It was confirmed that there would be no public consultation on the economic development plan but only on the Combined Authority proposal and that the LEP had played a central role.

I asked why the plan did not start by identifying local needs such as rural unemployment and affordable housing then consult communities and small businesses on how to tackle these problems. They said not to worry as this was an outline economic plan – but later they confirmed that there would be no consultation on the economic plan or any opportunity to change it.

We have a Devolution Prospectus written by the few big businesses in the LEP to serve their own needs rather than those of the wider community of Devon and Somerset. This has then been rubberstamped by local authorities who did not have the staff, time or vision to rewrite it to meet our real needs and who failed to consult residents and small and family businesses. As a result we will be subjected, without any opportunity to comment, to a local economic development strategy that will serve the wealthy rather than the majority and that will fail to provide jobs where they’re needed or houses to the people who need them most.

In contrast the RSA – Royal Society of Arts – outlines how we should be delivering genuine, fair and inclusive devolution (see below).

The UK’s economic status-quo has resulted in huge sections of our population being ‘left behind’. So the RSA are proposing a radical programme of devolution, inclusive industrial strategies and investment in human capital to create a more inclusive, equal society.

https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-blogs/2016/09/inclusive-growth-proposals

Theresa May disbands the “David Cameron Business Forum”

aka his “Business Advisory Group”.

“Theresa May has disbanded the group of business leaders assembled by her predecessor to advise on City and financial matters. The prime minster has not created an alternative team after telling the dozen or so business leaders their advice was no longer required.

Her decision to break up the so-called business advisory group – which included the Legal & General chief executive Nigel Wilson and Virgin Money chief executive Jayne-Anne Gadhia – was seen as a signal of a clean break from Cameron’s way of dealing with the City and big business. …

… The move was welcomed by small business leaders, who will be hoping for a bigger voice and influence as the Brexit negotiations take place. May’s first event at No 10 was a meeting with small businesses.

Mike Cherry, national chairman at the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “This is the right moment for No 10 to review its business engagement structures and to broaden them – and we look forward to making sure that small businesses are part of that.”

The CBI, which represents big employers, said: “The CBI regularly meets with the government – the prime minister, chancellor and secretaries of state – for bilateral meetings on a wide range of issues affecting businesses and the economy.”

Cameron’s business advisory group was described as a “small group of business leaders from sectors of strategic importance to the UK that provides regular, high-level advice to the prime minister”. Members were often picked to travel with ministers on foreign visits and were

It was reshuffled after the 2015 election and also included Carolyn McCall, chief executive of easyJet and Xavier Rolet, chief executive of the London Stock Exchange. During the referendum campaign, its members’ views on Brexit were closely scrutinised. A letter backing the Remain campaign was not signed by some of the advisers including Alison Brittain, chief executive of Costa Coffee owner Whitbread, and Jeff Fairburn, head of housebuilder Persimmon.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/22/theresa-may-tells-big-business-advisers-no-more-advice-please

“Election officers urge “root and branch” review of electoral system”

We know all about election problems in East Devon! Indeed our Returning Officer and CEO Mark Williams was called to Parliament to explain our omnishambles when 6,000 voters disappeared from the electoral roll in the year before general and local elections.

And an interesting point made on the declarations of electoral administration expenses.

“Election officers were “pushed to the absolute limit” by this year’s glut of polls, the Association of Electoral Administrators has said in a report.

This covered the period of local elections last May and the referendum on European Union membership in June, both conducted on new registers under the individual electoral registration system.

The report said election administrators would recall 2016 “as the year that the system came closer to collapse than ever before”.

The combination of May and June polls left administrators “stretched beyond belief” as they struggled to run multiple local polls and the referendum back to back, the AEA said.

This was complicated by the 48-hour extension to the registration deadline for the referendum.

The AEA warned that the system would be unable to cope with further burdens unless it were reformed.

Chief executive John Turner said: “What is required is a root and branch review of the whole arrangements for registration and the conduct of elections rather than more adjustment and change to a system so deeply rooted in the 19th century.

“Many of the problems that currently exist and which surfaced again at this year’s elections are because of the historic nature of the systems in place and which are increasingly becoming unfit for purpose.”

The AEA said the Government should implement the Law Commission’s
recommendations for a single Electoral Administration Act setting out the high-level framework governing electoral registration, elections and referendums in the UK, with the operational detail of registration, absent voting, and elections contained in secondary legislation.

It should also publish an assessment of the risks associated with any proposed changes to legislation before making any changes.

The Cabinet Office should ensure that administration expenses claims submitted are audited and settled within the same financial year, the AEA said.

It also called for staff to be exempt from auto-enrolment for pensions when they were working on elections and referendums, as opposed to their normal duties, to avoid creating a liability for election administrators.

The AEA sounded the alarm over the multiple polls due on 7 May 2020, when a UK Parliamentary general election, police and crime commissioner elections and those for numerous local authorities and elected mayors are due to coincide. It called on the Government to consider changing the date of some of the polls involved.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28433%3Aelection-officers-urge-root-and-branch-review-of-electoral-system&catid=59&Itemid=27

The myth of local health consultations and “choices”

Our local health services are NOT overspent, they are underfunded.

We are NOT having to make “difficult choices” – we are being told what has been decided for us behind closed doors about the consequences of that underfunding.

“Public consultation” is far too little far too late. The decisions were made long ago about which services will suffer and we cannot reverse those decisions without a MASSIVE revolt against them, and even then concessions will be zero or minimal.

That is the reality.

If we want to change that most of us will have to vote out the people who brought us to this. Unpalatable for some, but the only course available to us.

Chief Constables want complaints against them kept secret

“Britain’s most senior police officers are demanding that official complaints about their conduct and behaviour be kept secret.
The Chief Constables’ Council recently discussed moves that could be made to stop the public finding out about investigations into alleged corruption and misconduct. …

… David Burrowes, a lawyer and MP on the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: ‘There are many people like doctors and politicians who are named when allegations are made against them, so I don’t think police officers should have a special rule. It’s very important that law enforcers aren’t treated differently.’ …

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3794690/Keep-complaints-against-secret-say-Britain-s-police-chiefs.html

And what stance will our Police and Crime Commissioner, also under investigation herself, take about this one? Agree, so that future PCCs could be included in anonymity? Or prefer the disinfectant of sunlight?

And what about representatives on Police Panels? Hide away the dirty linen or wash it for all to see?

“Hinkley: where Tories’ private bank balances are going nuclear”

“On 15 September, Prime Minister Theresa May officially gave the go-ahead for the controversial Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. After May put the project under review in July, there were rumours that it might be cancelled. But today’s sudden announcement appears to have cemented the deal.

But the move should come as little surprise. Because when you look at who is behind it, and who benefits from it, it appears that the Tories (once again) have their snouts firmly in the trough.

An eye-watering white elephant

The £18bn new plant in Hinkley, Somerset is being built by French energy company EDF, and financed by both them and the Chinese government. The latter agreed to the financing, in return for approval of a Chinese-led and designed project at Bradwell in Essex. But there are concerns about escalating costs and the implications of nuclear power plants being built in the UK by foreign governments.

The deal been slammed by both Labour and environmental campaigners. Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, meanwhile, has called Hinkley “the biggest white elephant in British history”. She said that it was absurd and disappointing that the deal was to proceed when the government is reducing support for cheaper, safer and more reliable renewable alternatives:

Instead of investing in this eye-wateringly expensive white elephant, the government should be doing all it can to support offshore wind, energy efficiency and innovative new technologies, such as energy storage.
But a quietly released report by Greenpeace shows that the deal was probably always going to go ahead.

EDF: in bed with the government

Analysis done by Greenpeace found that ten advisers and civil servants who worked at the former Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in the last five years had links to EDF. One was recently employed by the DECC and was also a manager at the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the regulator for the nuclear industry. This was before they became a licensing officer for EDF.

An EDF Strategy Manager had a 13-month secondment to the DECC commercial team while working for auditors KPMG. As Greenpeace notes, the DECC commercial team “played a crucial role in deciding to press ahead with the Hinkley project”. It was this team which had oversight on who invested in Hinkley Point C. Additionally, a communications officer for EDF was previously the Senior Ministerial Visits Manager at DECC until early 2016. And a policy adviser and analyst for the now-defunct department had previously done the same job at EDF.

This is on top of the fact that former Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, now works as a lobbyist for MHP Communications – where EDF just happens to be a client. As Martin Williams describes in his book Parliament Ltd: A journey to the dark heart of British politics:

When he lost his seat in 2015, he [Davey] went off to join MHP Communications. He had connections with the firm already: MHP acted as lobbyists for EDF Energy, who Davey “had dealings with as a minister”… When MHP’s Chief Executive announced Davey’s appointment he was able to speak candidly about the benefits of employing a former energy minister. “Ed’s unique insight into the energy sector will be particularly valuable to the companies that we work with in that sector. His knowledge of the top-level workings of Britain’s political system will also prove immensely useful to a range of our clients and to MHP itself”.

It was Davey who was responsible for the initial agreement between the government and EDF. But the links to EDF Energy and the Tory government run deeper than the Greenpeace analysis. And go right to the top of the Conservative Party.

Tories: in bed with EDF

Sir Richard Lambert heads EDF’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel. It gives EDF “strategic advice and direction”. Knighted under David Cameron, he’s a non-executive director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, acting as lead advisor to the Foreign Secretary. He was in this role under Philip Hammond, who appears to have been crucial in getting the Hinkley deal pushed through. Lambert said of the Hinkley deal:

The Stakeholder Panel will be taking a particular interest in the final investment decision on Hinkley Point C.

Also advising EDF is Dame Helen Alexander. She is a non-executive director at Rolls-Royce, which has £100m worth of contracts at Hinkley, Alexander is also the Deputy Chair of the “women on boards” review. She was appointed by Sajid Javid in February 2016.”

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/09/15/hinkley-tories-private-bank-balances-going-nuclear/

New Facebook Group: Devon United – Doing Democracy Differently

Inaugural Meeting: Tue 4 October 2016 18:00 – 21:30
Newton Abbot Races Ltd
Newton Road
Kingsteignton

Everyone very welcome – Paul Hilder is coming to talk to us all about localism and retaking democracy and there will be lots of discussion about the next county elections and how we can unite to be a challenge.

Free tickets can be obtained via:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/devon-united-doing-democracy-differently-tickets-27679676658

Devon United is a group of local people who want to see a change in the way our elected County Councillors work and represent us and believe that moving beyond party politics is the way to do it.

We will be joined by Paul Hilder, co-founder of OpenDemocracy.net and CrowdPac and former global campaigns director for Avaaz and Change.org who will share his insights on how people can make real change happen.

We are fed up of our communities being sidelined by our councils and having no voice in the decisions that affect our communities. We are being ignored about the loss of our community hospitals, care units and services for our young people, ignored over planning decisions that see enormous estates being built around our small country towns that do not have the infrastructure to cope and are unaffordable to local people, ignored and misled over devolution and enough is enough.

We want to put our communities first and elect accountable, transparent and open County Councillors to represent our views at next years County Council elections.

We will discuss how we would like our politicians to operate, how we can identify the best candidates and how we can work together to campaign and organise in our communities to make plans and find inspiration to make our county work for everyone.”

Come along and let’s Do Democracy Differently

One planning law for EDDC, another for the rest of us …

If an ordinary citizen started building work before receiving planning permission, they would be stopped. Not our council. As it decides for itself about Knowle, it is safe to say that they are confident they will grant themselves permission whatever:

East Devon District Council (EDDC) is carrying out the work, expected to take around 38 weeks to complete, as it prepares to relocate some of its offices to the town hall from Knowle, Sidmouth. [Do these works would need planning permission?]

The town council will be moving to 44 Rolle Street, from where it will continue to provide its usual services. [Does this building work need change of use?]

The council’s telephone and email contact details will remain unchanged.

The council of voluntary service will be moving to Ground Floor, Unit 15, Dinan Way, with its telephone and email contact details also remaining unchanged.

The Devon Registration Service will then leave the town hall on November 26, moving to Larkbeare House, Topsham Road, Exeter, with its telephone number also unchanged.

The town hall will remain open while the work takes place to allow EDDC to offer its housing needs, council tax and housing benefits services, which will be available between 9am and 4.30pm, Monday to Friday.

Citizens Advice will also continue to operate a drop-in service from the town hall, between 10am and 12.30pm and between 1.30pm and 3.30pm, Monday to Friday.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/council_and_services_to_move_as_town_hall_work_set_to_begin_1_4692835

Why has EDDC done a special press release for a private venue?

Even under the guise of “Heritage Week” why has EDDC put out this council press release for a privately owned and run venue?

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2016/09/heritage-day-sees-historic-home-open-to-the-public-for-the-first-time/

Does EDDC own the building? It appears not. Why did they choose it to put on some ” outdoor activities” for children there when they have coastal towns and wetlands available?

Councillor Ian Chubb says:

Our heritage and planning staff worked closely with Rockbeare Manor to deliver a refurbishment of the highest quality, advising on local apple varieties for the new orchard, for example. Our Growth Point and Countryside teams have partnered with the new owner to run this event, because the historic manor and landscaped parkland is such an important asset to the growing East Devon community.”

Were the heritage and planning staff paid for this consultancy advice? If it was free is it available to owners of other private properties in East Devon? If it was paid for – can other people access these busy EDDC employees for a fee?

EDDC now has a good number of current and former members of the hospitality industry as serving councillors, at least three of whom are currently on the EDDC Licensing Committee.

They must be careful who they sup with.

“Law Commission consults on reform to law on misconduct in public office”

Consultation is from

5 September 2016 to 28 November 2016

Owl guesses that many comments will emanate from East Devon!

“… The Law Commission has issued a consultation paper

Click to access cp229_misconduct_in_public_office.pdf

on a new statutory offence aimed at tackling the problems with the existing law.

It has put forward two forms that the offence would take and invites consultees to say whether either or both should be taken forward into legislation.

Option 1 is described as a ‘breach of duty model’ and would involve the creation of a new offence of breach of duty by a public office holder with a particular duty concerned with the prevention of harm. …

… Option 2 is meanwhile described as a ‘corruption based model’. The consultation proposes the creation of a new offence that borrows some elements from the existing offence of police corruption under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, but applies to all public office holders and improves, the Law Commission said, upon the section 26 offence in a number of ways.

The offence under Option 2 would be committed when:

a public office holder (as defined in statute);

abuses his or her position or a power or authority held by virtue of that position;
by exercising that position, power or authority with the purpose of achieving an advantage for the office holder or another or causing detriment to another; and
the exercise of that position, power or authority for that purpose is seriously improper.

A third option discussed in the consultation paper is that the current law should be abolished without replacement. However, the Law Commission’s provisional proposal is that this step should not be taken.

Law Commissioner Professor David Ormerod QC said: “It is vital that the public have confidence in their public officials and in the legal framework that sets the boundaries of their conduct. The offence of misconduct in public office is increasingly being used to bring public officials to account but recent high-profile investigations and prosecutions have brought the problems with this offence into sharp focus.

“The existing law relating to misconduct in public office is unclear in a number of fundamental respects. There is urgent need for reform to bring clarity and certainty and ensure that public officials are appropriately held to account for misconduct committed in connection with their official duties.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28243%3Alaw-commission-consults-on-reform-to-law-on-misconduct-in-public-office&catid=59&Itemid=27