Posted by

Posted on

8 Aug 2016

Posted under

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

EDF board members: conflict of interest?

“EDF’s decision to invest in the £18bn Hinkley Point should be declared invalid, French trade unions have said, as pressure builds against the troubled nuclear power plant project. …

… The CGT, CFE-CGC and FO unions said not enough consideration was given to whether EDF board members were subject to a conflict of interest, because some are employed by companies that stand to benefit from Hinkley.

“Who can say that with a rigorous management of the conflicts of interest and real transparency of information, the board decision would not have been different,” the unions said. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/08/edf-decision-hinkley-point-should-be-declared-void-french-unions-government-approval-nuclear

It seems that conflicts f interest are simply swept under many carpets these days.

Our Local Enterprise Partnership has several members with direct and indirect nuclear interests.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

6 Aug 2016

Posted under

Consultation, Exmouth, Philip Skinner, Spin, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

Exmouth regeneration: Spin, Skinner, Spin!

Q: When is an answer not an answer? A: when it is an EDDC senior councillor’s answer!

Transcribed from Exmouth Journal:

Q – We mentioned the visitor’s survey. If the outcome of the survey is that overwhelmingly visitors like the seafront the way it is and don’t want much to change, will that be the way the council then proceeds?

A – “The visitors’ survey doesn’t involve local people, it’s for visitors only. It will give us an indication of what visitors perceive is a visitor wish list when they go on holiday, what they like to see.

The interesting thing is this survey is being conducted by the South West Research Company, and we looked for a company from the South West because, when we talk about benchmarking Exmouth Against other seaside towns, it’s no good trying to compare Exmouth against Blackpool. We wanted to try and compare a South West offer with other South West seaside towns and resorts so we can see where we are.”

Umm…and the answer to the question is…?!

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

5 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Something rotten in the nuclear procurement industry?

It seems to be our very, very bad luck that our Local Enterprise Partnership is so heavily represented by people in the nuclear procurement arena.

The winning bidder in the court case below, in a process found by the judge to be very, very seriously flawed, was a consortium (CFP) that included our old friend Babcock via its Cavendish Nuclear subsidiary:

“CFP is a joint venture between the UK’s Cavendish Nuclear, part of Babcock International, and US-based Fluor Corporation. … ”

Here is a damning summary of the judgment, including a scathing attack on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s transparency:

Energy Solutions wins landmarks public procurement challenge

29 July 2016 – UK
On 29 July 2016, judgment was handed down in the much-anticipated case of Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The result, that Energy Solutions is entitled to damages as a result of errors made by the NDA [Nuclear Decommissioning Agency] in the evaluation process, will be welcomed by suppliers to the public sector struggling with the difficult decision whether to challenge a seemingly questionable tender award.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute relates to the procurement of a major contract for the decommissioning of a number of nuclear facilities. Energy Solutions was part of a consortium (RSS) that bid for the contract, but was unsuccessful. Energy Solutions questioned and subsequently challenged the award, on the basis that there had been ‘manifest errors’ in the evaluation process, and that its consortium should have instead been awarded the contract. Energy Solutions did not, as is usually the case in procurement challenges, issue proceedings within the statutory ‘standstill period’. As a result, the NDA was able to, and did, enter into a contract with the winning bidder, and Energy Solutions was left having to claim damages, rather than seeking to have the tender exercise re-run or the contract awarded to it.

NDA challenged this approach at the interim stage, arguing that by failing to issue proceedings within the standstill period, Energy Solutions had failed to mitigate its loss, or had broken the chain of causation. That argument failed at the preliminary issues stage and subsequently at the Court of Appeal, and the case proceeded to trial.

What did the Court decide?

Fraser J, giving judgment, found that there had indeed been manifest errors by those evaluating the bids. Had the bids been evaluated properly, he found, the winning bidder should have in fact been disqualified, under the NDA’s own evaluation criteria; alternatively, Energy Solutions’ consortium should have been scored higher and should have been awarded the contract. The question of quantum of damages will be decided separately, in a decision that will be watched with interest given the rarity of a successful claim for damages (rather than annulment, for example) in a procurement challenge.

The case has generated a number of other points of interest for suppliers, authorities and lawyers alike. Energy Solutions challenged the NDA’s approach to preserving and providing records. In a previous hearing, the court upheld the NDA’s right to claim legal privilege over documents generated by its solicitors in relation to the carrying out of the evaluation exercise (which Energy Solutions had argued was a commercial, rather than a legal, role). However, Fraser J noted that the withholding of these records meant that, in some instances, there was an omission in the evidence on the decision-making. This, he held, did not assist the NDA in defending Energy Solutions’ claim. The judge was even more critical of the NDA’s approach to the making and retaining of notes relating to the evaluation exercise, finding that this left certain important issues being dealt with “in a manner that is wholly contrary to the obligation of transparency.”

The case also took a dramatic last-minute turn, when it transpired shortly before judgment was to be handed down that Energy Solutions had agreed to pay certain of its witnesses a “bonus” payment if it were successful. After learning of this, the NDA applied for the case to be struck out or retried as a result. Having heard further submissions and cross-examination of those witnesses, though, the judge declined to order this. Although such payments are not allowed under English law, he held that the correct approach would be to look again at the evidence given by those witnesses and decide whether a different result would have been reached had that evidence been excluded. Fraser J concluded that the result would have been the same.

What does this mean for suppliers?

The judgment is highly detailed, and we will be reporting further on the issues that it raises for suppliers to the public sector. However, one thing that is clear is that this will give encouragement to those challenging awards that, in addition to seeking to prevent the contract being entered into or having the tender re-run, a claim for damages may well be a viable option.

http://www.osborneclarke.com/connected-insights/blog/energy-solutions-wins-landmarks-public-procurement-challenge/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

3 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Democracy, EDDC, Hugo Swire, Transparency

Bring back regular public meetings with politicians and public servants!

An article in today’s Guardian suggests that we need more accountability and transparency from those in public office and suggests that one way to do this is to ensure that our public servants and politicians are put on the spot more often by being expected to attend regular public meetings to explain themselves.

Not the carefully scripted and whipped official committee meetings, where the agenda is tightly controlled and policed, when many of them keep quiet and vote or act like sheep – but situations where they must think on their feet and tell us what they REALLY think (if they think at all).

Imagine if, say once a month, an individual councillor or officer or MP had to be available in the community to answer questions from local electors without warning of what those questions might be!

A few would definitely acquit themselves well – but a great majority in East Devon would definitely be floundering at the first question and thereafter!

An intriguing idea!

” … But social media have not destroyed the public meeting. They have done the opposite. Twitter, Facebook and the rest are indirectly responsible for the glorious revival of the gathering where real people meet in a physical place. For some of us, sitting behind a computer is not enough. We need to get out. What is beyond doubt is that the old-fashioned forum of the public meeting is back and is the perfect counter to social media.

…
For at least two decades, politicians assumed that a soundbite on the TV news bulletin was what mattered. Oratory as a part of the repertoire disappeared. Politics became technocratic rather than the art form it partly must be. The glory of the public meeting is that there is no escape. A speaker must deliver. The audience is composed of real people. The speaker cannot hide away tweeting alone in a room. People want to be there and need to be there, to be together out of curiosity or as part of what they see as a cause. … ”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/03/new-big-thing-politics-old-style-public-meeting-labour-battleground-live-events

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

2 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Independent Councillors, Transparency

Paul Hayward: independent councillor and a top parish clerk!

“All Saints Parish Council has been given Quality Foundation status – one of only six local authorities in Devon to achieve the accolade.

The award from the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) demonstrates that the authority has the required documentation and information in place for operating lawfully and according to standard practice.

The council also has policies for training its councillors and officers and so has the foundations for improvement and development in place.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/all_saints_parish_council_gains_top_award_1_4640681

Wonder why only six councils in Devon have reached this status?

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

25 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Transparency

South-West MPs much more worried about devolution deal than councillors or LEP

“Devon and Somerset councils are reaching a critical stage in their bid for devolved powers, as they decide whether or not to accept a new combined authority model.

All 17 councils involved in the joint devolution bid are required to vote on the proposals, before leaders can progress with negotiations over the summer. It is hoped this could see a deal announced in time for the Autumn statement – but there are concerns among MPs that the current bid lacks clarity.

South West Devon MP Gary Streeter, said he and fellow MPs “greatly recognise and applaud” the work that Devon and Somerset councils have put in so far. But at the moment they have “more questions than answers”. “I think over the next two to three months, when we sit down with the new secretary of state and council leaders, we’re looking for those questions to be answered,” he said. “This is not the fault of the councils, it’s the fault of Government [that] it is still slightly vague and up in the air. “We’re not hostile, we’re just cautious at this stage, and want these questions to be answered. “We want more information about what the benefits will be to our constituents.”

To date, the Conservative Government has awarded 12 devolution deals to cities and regions across the UK. These have passed down greater control over a range of local services, including public health, transport and education.

Devon and Somerset councils collaborated with local national parks, CCGs and the Heart of the South West (HotSW) LEP to submit a joint bid in February. And following their most recent meeting with former local government secretary Greg Clark, they seem optimistic they will secure a deal. However, any progress rests on the individual district, unitary and county councils supporting the creation of a new combined authority (CA) for the region.

The proposal has already been voted through by a number of local authorities – including Exeter, Plymouth and Somerset – with Devon County Council due to vote on Thursday.

Somerset County Council leader John Osman believes the CA model present a far more suitable option than the alternative of a directly elected mayor. And he wants to clarify that it “will not take any powers or responsibilities” from the existing councils. “There is no appetite for a directly elected mayor in the Devon and Somerset area, so the Government have asked for an alternative,” he said.

“What [the combined authority] means is a board with one representative from every one of the 17 councils, the NHS and national parks, who will decide on the new powers and new responsibilities given. “It wont be a new bureaucracy or anything like that, [and] it wont be a massive committee of everybody. It will be 23 people around the room, one from each authority.”

If the proposals are accepted, Devon and Somerset will become the first region to receive devolved powers through a non-mayoral CA model. However, any progress rests on the individual district, unitary and county councils supporting the creation of a new combined authority (CA) for the region.

The proposal has already been voted through by a number of local authorities – including Exeter, Plymouth and Somerset – with Devon County Council due to vote on Thursday.

Somerset County Council leader John Osman believes the CA model present a far more suitable option than the alternative of a directly elected mayor. And he wants to clarify that it “will not take any powers or responsibilities” from the existing councils. “There is no appetite for a directly elected mayor in the Devon and Somerset area, so the Government have asked for an alternative,” he said. “What [the combined authority] means is a board with one representative from every one of the 17 councils, the NHS and national parks, who will decide on the new powers and new responsibilities given. “It wont be a new bureaucracy or anything like that, [and] it wont be a massive committee of everybody. It will be 23 people around the room, one from each authority.”

If the proposals are accepted, Devon and Somerset will become the first region to receive devolved powers through a non-mayoral CA model.

Leaders are hoping that all councils will be on side with the proposals by the end of July, to enable them to start further negotiations with Whitehall over the summer. Their next aim is to have a draft deal from the Government for local authorities to vote on by the end of October. They believe this could lead to an official deal being announced in November’s Autumn Statement.

Councillor Osman admits that the recent cabinet reshuffle – which saw Greg Clark replaced by Sajid Javid – has created some uncertainty. But he says it remains his ambition “to get a deal done and dusted by November time”. “We are now getting into contact with the new secretary of state and the chancellor to say we are still on track and working with civil servants,” he said. “We need to hear back from them to ensure they are still carrying on with the previous administrations line. “I can’t think why he wouldn’t to be honest, it was a conservative policy. But we’ve made contact and we’ve just got it wait for a response.”

The HotSW bid asks for a range of powers, including greater control over road and rail investment, more influence over house building and land use, and better integration of health and social care. Similar responsibilities have been devolved to other areas, including Cornwall, but only authorities with mayors have gained significant control over health budgets and business rates. The additional funding allocated to fund devolution also varies from deal to deal, starting from £15 million a year in Lincolnshire, to £36 million in the West Midlands.

At a Plymouth City Council meeting earlier this month, Labour councillor Tudor Evans called for a “serious conversation” about money. He argued the South West deal must not “set up the combined authority… for a fall”. He told the council chamber: “We’ve known for along time things like adult social care… health services… public health [are] inadequately funded. “We must use this… to unlock the bad funding formulae that have consigned us to not doing the best we can for too many years.”

Coun. Osman states that “the devil is in the detail” when it comes to finances. But he is confident that as councils take on new responsibilities from Government “funding will hopefully follow”. “If not, there is an inkling that we will be able to get some other sources of funding well,” he said. “Not council tax rises or anything like that, but money from central government or business rate rises.”

An area of underlying tension throughout the development of the bid has been geography, with Government keen for bids to focus on LEP boundaries. However, there are those who argue an authority which straddles multiple cities and counties will lack the sense of unity and identity enjoyed by somewhere like Cornwall. Other large multi-authority bids have come close to unravelling, with the East Anglia deal eventually being split into two after Cambridgeshire County Council rejected plans.

Gary Streeter points out that while the tendency in Somerset is “to look Eastwards toward Bristol and London”, in Devon the natural instinct is to look West toward Cornwall. “Most of us feel that… the region should be Devon and Cornwall, but we seem to have gone past that point,” he said. “Some people feel more strongly about it than others, particularly I think the Somerset MPs…. but is not necessarily a deal breaker. “There seems to be broad support for establishing Devon and Somerset. And there is support for a combined authority, provided we know how its going to work and its not simply adding another tier of government.”

Coun. Osman believes a break-up of the Devon and Somerset alliance is “unlikely”, adding that ministers are “pleased” that the 23 authorities have remained united. He said council leaders and staff will work hard over coming months to make the most of an opportunity to “shape the agenda for the South West”.

Mr Streeter is more reserved, suggesting that the new secretary of state may want to take a fresh look at the devolution agenda. He states that a November timetable “is a possibility” but “a lot of water has got to flow under that bridge yet”, and MPs will get a vote on the final deal. “Over the next two or three months… the detail [of the deal] is likely to change and emerge, so I think people shouldn’t get too hung up on the detail,” he added. “My own feeling is that with the new secretary of state coming in… some of the slight vagueness of the current proposal will be addressed.”

At a glance: What is a combined authority?

The 17 Devon and Somerset councils making a joint bid for devolution have been asked to support a new combined authority in order to progress to a deal.

Councillors stress this is not an attempt to merge authorities, or to take powers from lower tier councils– but there is potential for this to change.

Ministers first legislated for the creation of combined authorities in 2009, to allow councils to pool resources for the delivery of local services.

Their powers were enhanced by the passage of the recent Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, and the model has subsequently been taken up in a number of areas bidding for devolution.

In areas like Great Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, they have opted to establish CAs under the control of an elected mayor. However, the Heart of the South West (HotSW) region could be one of the first areas to secure a devolution package with a non-mayoral CA.

As proposals currently stand, the Devon and Somerset CA would be made up of one member from each council, national park, Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) involved with the bid. Council leaders claim it will not be a physical entity or a “new bureaucracy,” but will simply be a way to coordinate the distribution of new funds and powers throughout the region.

The aim is to improve oversight without resorting to a directly elected mayor system, which many see as unsuitable for a region as large and diverse as Devon and Somerset. However, reports state that it is possible to change to a mayoral CA at a later date, and for powers to be transferred from lower tier councils “subject to agreement”.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/devon-and-somerset-on-cusp-of-devolution-deal-but-mps-want-more-clarity/story-29549453-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

25 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Spin, Standards Committee, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Post-truth’ politics are a debasement of standards in public life”

“Verbal dexterity, inconsistency and ‘spin’ are part and parcel of normal politics but the exaggerations and distortions of the EU referendum campaign has led to concerns about ‘post-truth’ politics.

Nicholas Allen and Sarah Birch write there is a need for someone to provide a moral lead, and argue the Committee for Standards in Public Life could play a valuable role by establishing some relevant basic markers. …

… current trends, first identified in the context of US politics and more recently in the context of British politics, risk stretching beyond breaking-point a basic commitment to truth and honesty that is essential for liberal democracy. Without it, citizens cannot hope to achieve ‘enlightened understanding’ and learn about what best serve their interests, one of five criteria identified by Robert Dahl that define modern democratic government. Someone in government, or at least in officialdom, needs to take note. Someone needs to provide a moral lead. …

… Morality in politics needs to come from somewhere. The CSPL [Committee for Standards in Public Life] is charged with overseeing standards in public life. The new prime minister should give it the resources and remit to do just this.

‘Post-truth’ politics are a debasement of standards in public life

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

23 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Devolution: Horses, carts, stable doors …

EDDC issues a press release on 21 July 2016 saying that on 13 July 2016 its Cabinet decided to press ahead with devolution plans:

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/cabinet_agrees_to_continue_east_devon_devolution_talks_in_principle_1_4625365

THEN

the Overview Committee discusses it on 28 July:

Click to access 280616-overview-agenda-combined.pdf

And STILL we are not allowed our say!

Priceless.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

21 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

EDDC votes to continue devolution deal despite absence of consultation and facts

Talks on the devolution of power from Westminster to East Devon will continue ‘in principle’ amid calls for a public consultation and more concrete facts.

If successful, the Heart of the South West (HOTSW) bid would see local authorities work with the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to take on more responsibility for economic growth and infrastructure in the region.

East Devon District Council’s cabinet agreed to carry on the conversation in principle at a meeting last Wednesday (July 13) but there was a consensus that more ‘concrete facts’ are needed.

[Independent, East Devon Alliance] Councillor Cathy Gardner said: “One thing that has concerned me since the beginning of this process is the complete absence of a public consultation. It could have a huge impact. It would be remiss of us to take this forward without seeing what people want.” EDDC’s full council will need to give the final go-ahead to continue talks.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

18 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Standards Committee, Transparency

EDDC: cost of officer time – selective monitoring and double standards for the Standards Committee

Isn’t it interesting that, in just about every area of EDDC’s work, the cost of officer time is not included. Take the Knowle relocation – officer time is NEVER costed. Take planning applications and the production of the Local Plan – officer time is NEVER costed.

Yet, when it comes to monitoring the behaviour of councillors, somehow officer time can be costed. Why? Because EDDC wants to subtly suggest that it costs an awful lot of money and really people should not be wasting their precious time as most complaints are dismissed by the Monitoring Officer anyway!

“The annual cost for assessing Monitoring Officer type complaints remains at approximately £40,000, which has been calculated based on an estimate of officers’ time spent assessing, investigating and administering complaints as part of their job role. Officers dealing with the Code of Conduct complaints process are:
Monitoring Officer; Deputy Monitoring Officer, PA to Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services Officer, statutory Independent Person role (of which EDDC has used two on an alternate basis) and Investigating Officer when required.”

Click to access 190716standardscttecombinedagenda.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

17 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Cornwall, DCC, Devolution, Economy, Education (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments, Rural communities, Small and Medium businesses, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Brexit: where now for Devon and Cornwall businesses?

Devon and Cornwall Business Council:

… “1) DEVOLUTION. This process may be very welcome to the business community (or it may not). There has been inadequate consultation for us to know what the implications might be. Either way it will create a period of uncertainty. We cannot afford to risk this whilst so many critical matters are up in the air. I propose that we ask for, at least, a 12 month moratorium whilst clarity is restored. Then we need a proper period of consultation knowing what we then know. Devolution has the potential to provide significant opportunities for devolved administrations to determine their own future when it comes to skills, transport, investment and development, but this agenda needs to be developed collaboratively with the private sector standing shoulder to shoulder with Government.

2) EUROPEAN MARKETS. More than 50% of South West trade is with near Europe. There have been some bold statements that 90% of trading opportunities will be outside the EU in the next 10-15 years. Many, however, of our investors are based in Europe – IMERYS, EDF Energy, Sibelco, Princes Yachts, Plymouth Gin, Barden Corporation to name but a few. Decisions are made in European capitals which affect a large number of our jobs and future growth prospects. We need to ensure that the existing investments are maintained and that we will feature in future investment decisions – access to the Single Market is vital. UK Trade and Industry (UKTI) department officials are already fully stretched (inadequate funding currently, with an increasing workload), we need to establish our own business trade ambassadors to ensure direct contacts are maintained and developed. From this base we can then begin to start creating a forward order book for whatever new trade agreements might emerge. This will also allow a programme to be developed to enable access into new global markets.

3) INFRASTRUCTURE. The South West has for too long been the Cinderella of the UK in terms of infrastructure investment. We have clearly supported plans for future spending on road, rail, air, marine and broadband projects. We must now directly lobby for these, acting as a single voice and ensuring that our South West MPs are lobbied to also speak with one voice. What, however, will make this happen is a demonstration that investment in infrastructure will result in direct business investment. We need to clearly demonstrate what we will contribute in return.

4) PLAY TO OUR STRENGTHS. Some of our most successful business sectors should be the subject of focussed programmes for ambitious expansion – food and drink, tourism and e-health are good examples of where the South West has specialist skills. Add to these; marine / maritime technology, aerospace / space, advanced engineering, digital and creative economy. Designed and co-ordinated tasks forces could achieve spectacular results in these areas of the economy.

5) GOVERNANCE/REGULATION. The system of regulation has been often complained about as a barrier to business growth – red tape, EU regulations or Gold plating from Whitehall? Staffing levels at regulators have been cut making the problems more acute. The establishment of voluntary codes and working partnerships led by trade bodies and self-regulated by them (with rewards for best practise) could greatly improve the current confrontational systems which have become entrenched – particularly in areas such as planning and environmental health.

6) PRODUCTIVITY. We have routinely lagged behind the average UK productivity levels (between 15-20% lower than UK average for Devon and Cornwall1). There are many drivers of productivity; investment, innovation, skills, enterprise and competition. This problem can be partly addressed by self-help. Simple work based systems can achieve significant improvements to outputs (and profits). These include Lean Production techniques. Training for all staff on digital skills and improvements to work/life balance (flexible working hours) which can reduce lost time off through stress / illness.

7) YOUNG BUSINESS. The Business Community has a collective responsibility to re-engage with the next generation to ensure we have attracted the huge talents of our young people. Business support can start by involvement as a Governor at Primary School all the way through to being a voluntary mentor for new start businesses. There are also great opportunities for assisting with work experience. The SW is blessed with some exceptional people with invaluable skills and experience. This should be high on the business agenda.

8) INNOVATION/SKILLS. We are proud of our Universities and Further Education Colleges. They deliver with national and international standards. The ground breaking research they produce is helping to change things around the world. We complain about a lack of relevant skills; however, do we fully engage with these institutions? Do we share with them our future business plans so that skill sets can be anticipated? Do we share with them our challenges in order to co-develop innovative solutions? Do we respond to their outreach work which can tackle production/system deficiencies? The answer is we could all do better. New partnerships should be formed as a priority. In part focusing on achieving young people with relevant skills (matched to growth sectors) through apprenticeships which, have the potential to greatly reduce our reliability on skilled labour from outside the UK, EU or otherwise.

9) URBAN/RURAL. For too long we have allowed ourselves to get sucked into Whitehall speak on the growth of Cities. Seen from the Whitehall bubble this is the best place to concentrate investment decisions. What we are missing by not forging strong urban/rural partnerships represents one of the greatest untapped opportunities for the growth of our economy – natural energy, local food production, health and well-being, water quality, flood/climate change management are all on our doorstep. DCBC will spearhead a rolling programme of partnership opportunities.

10) FUNDNG. The expectation that Government cash will still arrive as before is fool’s gold. Austerity will get worse before it gets better. Business will become even more important in the funding of growth opportunities. This could include matched funding with Devolved Authorities and perhaps taking advantage of cheap Government borrowing. We must set out our investment priorities more clearly and take these to our key stakeholders in the public sector for early discussions in order that improved delivery be achieved.”

http://www.dcbc.co.uk/news/brexit-where-next-business-community-10-point-recovery-plan#

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

16 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Lobbying, Spin, Transparency

Everything changes, nothing changes

“New International Trade Secretary Liam Fox celebrated his government comeback at a Commons champagne party attended by the friend and former associate linked to his previous Cabinet downfall.

Dr Fox and Adam Werritty were among a noisy group who downed eight bottles of bubbly on the Commons terrace, with at least one cork being popped into the River Thames. The event took place within an hour of Dr Fox, 54, being given a key Brexit role in Theresa May’s new Cabinet. His friends queued up to give him congratulatory slaps on the back as he drank £29-a-bottle House of Commons champagne.

The impromptu party, hosted by Commons Deputy Speaker and fellow Tory MP Eleanor Laing, a longstanding friend of Dr Fox and his wife Jesme, was attended by about 20 people. They got through eight bottles over a couple of hours. Mrs Fox was not present.

Dr Fox was forced to resign as Defence Secretary in October 2011 in a row over his dealings with Mr Werritty. The lobbyist did not have security clearance but accompanied Dr Fox on at least 18 foreign business trips.

The resignation came after a week of revelations about Dr Fox’s relationship with Werritty, including disclosures that the friend’s activities were funded by firms and individuals that potentially stood to benefit from government decisions.

At the time, Werritty falsely described himself as one of Dr Fox’s official aides and handed out business cards bearing the Commons portcullis logo. He also took a number of solo trips reportedly with the aim of fostering closer ties between Right-wing politicians in Britain and the United States.

In his resignation letter to the then Prime Minister David Cameron, Dr Fox said he had ‘mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my Government activities to become blurred’.

Mr Werritty, 37, best man at Dr Fox’s 2005 wedding, moved into Dr Fox’s spare room in London after graduating from university. Werritty now lives in a flat in Dolphin Square, Pimlico – a mile from the Commons – where many MPs have apartments.

An inquiry cleared Dr Fox of benefiting financially from his links with Werritty.

An MP who saw Dr Fox’s champagne party said: ‘It seemed a bit over the top to celebrate so loudly in full view of members of the public on Westminster Bridge.’

Dr Fox said last night: ‘Adam and his wife were invited by Eleanor.’ He added: ‘My friends are my friends and I’m very loyal to them.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3693749/Fox-celebrates-bubbly-old-pal-New-Trade-Secretary-attends-party-ex-associate-linked-previous-downfall.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

15 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Lobbying, Transparency

Lobbying

“An influential Conservative member of the House of Lords has been accused of lobbying the government for the benefit of the coal industry, despite previously saying he does not argue for the industry’s interests.

Viscount Matt Ridley, a journalist and businessman, benefits financially from coalmines on his estate and has used his column in the Times newspaper to downplay the seriousness of climate change.

The former chairman of Northern Rock wrote to energy minister Lord Bourne in April to tell him about a Texas-based company with “fascinating new technology, which may well interest the Department of Energy and Climate Change”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/15/matt-ridley-accused-of-lobbying-uk-government-on-behalf-of-coal-industry

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

14 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Hinkley C, Transparency

“Arms companies charged taxpayer for Xmas parties and charity donations, says defence spending watchdog “

Surely some contracts for Hinkley C will be susceptible to such things?

“Arms companies have padded defence contracts to the tune of £61m with costs including “charitable donations”, Christmas parties and commemorative mugs.

Spending watchdog the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO) has revealed how defence deals where the contract was not put out to tender have been abused by suppliers, accusing them of failing to meet contract agreements.

The SSRO was set two years ago to crack down on abuse of the £8bn the UK military spends on “single source” deals annually. These are contracts where there is only a single buyer – the MoD – and single supplier because of national security or an urgent need for equipment on the frontline. Once the cost of the contract has been totted up, companies are allowed to make a set profit rate – currently 8.95pc.

The watchdog said it has found examples including suppliers charging £32,500 for a donation to charity, £34,000 for “staff welfare” which include the cost of a Christmas party and £10,000 for “entertaining costs”. Other costs the watchdog is cracking down on include companies charging the MoD to fix their own faulty workmanship and bidding for the deal – even though there was no competition.

Defence procurement minister Philip Dunne has previously cited companies charging £24,000 for ceremonial mugs and £2,000 for a children’s party as other inappropriate costs.

Announcing that its interim compliance report had rated defence contractors as “poor” at following the controls overseen by the SSRO, Clive Tucker, the watchdog’s chairman said: “For too long single-source defence procurement went without effective scrutiny and this is precisely the kind of inappropriate expenditure the Defence Reformed Act was meant to kill off.”

Paul Everitt, chief executive of aerospace and defence trade body ADS, said companies “recognise the SSRO’s role ensuring contracts deliver value for money for the taxpayer and a fair return for industry. Every effort is made to comply with guidance”.

He added: “All companies make every effort to comply with the SSRO’s statutory guidance. All parties are becoming more accustomed to the detailed and complex reporting requirements and each contract is agreed with the MoD following extensive and detailed negotiation.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/13/arms-companies-charged-taxpayer-for-xmas-parties-and-charity-don/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

13 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, General Election, Lobbying, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Spin, Transparency, Voting

Buying votes by political donation

Published in full because Owl found it impossible to decide which paragraph to cut.

“We may be told donors do not influence policy, but anywhere else our setup would be seen as corruption
Is this a democracy or is it a plutocracy? Between people and power is a filter through which decisions are made, a filter made of money. In the European referendum, remain won 46% of the money given and lent to the two sides (£20.4m) and 48% of the vote; leave won 54% of the money and 52% of the vote. This fearful symmetry should worry anyone who values democracy. Did the vote follow the money? Had the spending been the other way round, would the result have reflected that? These should not be questions you need to ask in a democracy.

If spending has no impact, no one told the people running the campaigns: both sides worked furiously at raising funds, sometimes from gruesome people. The top donor was the stockbroker Peter Hargreaves, who gave £3.2m to Leave.eu. He explained his enthusiasm for leaving the EU thus: “It would be the biggest stimulus to get our butts in gear that we have ever had … We will get out there and we will be become incredibly successful because we will be insecure again. And insecurity is fantastic.”

No one voted for such people, yet they are granted power over our lives. It is partly because the political system is widely perceived to be on sale that people have become so alienated. Paradoxically, political alienation appears to have boosted the leave vote. The leave campaign thrived on the public disgust generated by the system that helped it to win.

If politics in Britain no longer serves the people, our funding system has a lot to do with it. While in most other European nations, political parties and campaigns are largely financed by the state, in Britain they are largely funded by millionaires, corporations and trade unions. Most people are not fools, and they rightly perceive that meaningful choices are being made in private, without democratic consent. Where there is meaning, there is no choice; where there is choice, there is no meaning.

Politicians insist that donors have no influence on policy, but you would have to be daft to believe it. The fear of losing money is a constant anxiety, and consciously or subconsciously people with an instinct for self-preservation will adapt their policies to suit those most likely to fund them. Nor does it matter whether policies follow the money or money follows the policies: those whose proposals appeal to the purse-holders will find it easier to raise funds.

Sometimes the relationship appears to be immediate. Before the last general election, 27 of the 59 richest hedge fund managers in Britain sponsored the Conservatives. Perhaps these donations had nothing to do with the special exemption from stamp duty on stock market transactions the chancellor granted to hedge funds, depriving the public sector of about £145m a year. But that doesn’t seem likely.

At the Conservatives’ annual Black and White Ball, you get the access you pay for: £5,000 buys you the company of a junior minister; £15,000, a cabinet minister. Politicians insist that there’s no relationship between donations and appointments to the House of Lords, but a study at Oxford University found that the probability of this being true is “approximately equivalent to entering the national lottery and winning the jackpot five times in a row”.

We might not have had a say in the choice of the new prime minister, but I bet there was a lively conversation between Conservative MPs and their major funders.

Among the many reasons for the crisis in the Labour party is the desertion of its large private donors. One of them, the corporate lawyer Ian Rosenblatt, complains: “I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn or anyone around him is remotely interested in whether people like me support the party or not.” Why should the leader of the Labour party have to worry about the support of one person ahead of the votes of millions?

The former Labour adviser Ayesha Hazarika urged Corbyn to overcome his scruples: “Meeting rich people and asking for money is not exactly part of the brand that has been so successful among his party faithful. But … sometimes you just have to suck it up and do things you don’t like.”

Under our current system she might be right, not least because the Conservatives have cut Labour’s other sources of funding: trade union fees and public money. But what an indictment of the system that is. During the five years before the last election, 41% of the private donations made to political parties came from just 76 people. This is what plutocracy looks like.

Stand back from this system and marvel at what we have come to accept. If we saw it anywhere else, we would immediately recognise it as corruption. Why should parties have to grovel to oligarchs to win elections? Or, for that matter, trade unions?

The political system should be owned by everyone, not by a subset. But the corruption at its heart has become so normalised that we can scarcely see it.

Two-fifths of British political donations made by just 76 people
Here is one way in which we could reform our politics. Each party would be allowed to charge the same fee for membership – a modest amount, perhaps £20. The state would then match this money, at a fixed ratio. And that would be it. There would be no other funding for political parties. The system would be simple, transparent and entirely dependent on the enthusiasm politicians could generate. They would have a powerful incentive to burst their bubbles and promote people’s re-engagement with politics. The funding of referendums would be even simpler: the state would provide an equal amount for each side.

The commonest argument against such arrangements is that we can’t afford them. Really? We can’t afford, say, £50m for a general election, but we can afford the crises caused by the corruption of politics? We could afford the financial crisis, which arose from politicians’ unwillingness to regulate their paymasters. We can afford the costs of Brexit, which might have been bought by a handful of millionaires.

Those who urged us to leave the EU promised that we would take back control. Well, this is where it should begin.”

A fully linked version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/billionaires-bought-brexit-controlling-britains-political-system?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

12 Jul 2016

Posted under

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

Nuclear south-west

“… Referring to study commissioned by the Heart of the South West LEP, he added that the next 20 years is expected to see “up to £50 billion of nuclear-related opportunity” generated in the South West. …”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/booming-nuclear-industry-creating-opportunities-from-plymouth-to-gloucester/story-29504664-detail/story.html

That would be the Heart of the South West LEP where a large number of its Board members – who make the decisions about how to spend millions of pounds in Devon and Cornwall – are in the nuclear industry … and which is in charge of our devolution bid.

Sweet!

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

12 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Community Infrastructure Levy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Publc being consulted on East Anglia devolution

Whereas, here, we are being allowed no say at all:

https://www.eastangliadevo.co.uk

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

11 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

“A la carte devolution” says government minister …

Anyone see a recipe for disaster in this so-called a la carte menu for devolution? Owl thinks it smacks of “make it up as you go along” and would prefer a set menu! And Owl prefers to know its destination before it starts its journeys (see last paragraph).

“Greg Clark has set out a “continuous devolution” plan to boost the role of local councils so they become equal partners with Westminster in the governance of the country.

In a speech in Manchester on Friday, the local government secretary said government was moving towards a system where local areas were able to negotiate devolution with Whitehall on a “à la carte” basis and when communities identify new opportunities.

“If you lift the lid on Whitehall, what you see is an ongoing negotiation between different departments and ministers, an open process of give-and-take, proposal and counter-proposal,” he stated.

“This is how things work within central government, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t be the same between central government and local government: each with its own role and mandate, but equal partners in the governance of the nation.”

Although the government was “not quite there yet”, the Cities and Devolution Act included three enabling mechanisms that would make this happen. …

… Clark acknowledged that “to those of an excessively tidy frame of mind, this is quite unbearable”.

He added: “It’s not that they oppose devolution, it’s just that they want it implemented in a uniform, one-speed manner from the top-down. To me, that is to miss the point completely.

“Clearly, there are common principles that must be respected – such as democratic accountability and co-operation across local boundaries – but beyond that, I believe that the flexible approach to devolution has been vindicated.”

A uniform process of devolution would lead to reform at the pace of the slowest, which would have held back cities like Manchester and Liverpool, Clark added.

“I have always been clear that each deal and each piece of decentralising legislation represents a fresh point of departure not a final destination.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/clark-promises-continuous-devolution-cement-central-local-partnership

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

10 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

EDDC accounts 2015-16 available for public inspection NOW

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL
AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS –
PUBLIC INSPECTION ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REGULATIONS 2015

“Notice is given that from 1 July 2016 to 11 August 2016 inclusive; between 8:30am and 5:00pm (Monday to Friday) any person interested may inspect and make copies of the accounts of East Devon District Council for the year ended 31 March 2016 and other documents referred to in Section 26(1) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Please address any requests for access to the Council’s unaudited accounts to: Simon Davey (Strategic Lead for Finance) at the Council address shown below or email; sdavey@eastdevon.gov.uk or telephone 01395 517490. The unaudited accounts will be available on the council’s website http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk from the 30 June 2016.

Any objections to the accounts must relate to the matter in respect of which the auditor could take action (under section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act) namely, an unlawful item of account, or failure to bring the amount into account) or make a report in the public interest (under Section 24 of, and Para 1 of Schedule to, the Audit and Accountability Act 2014).

No objection may be made by or on behalf of a local government elector unless the auditor has received written notice of the proposed objection and the grounds on which it is made. In addition an elector is required at the same time to send a copy of any notice of the objection to East Devon District Council.

The addresses of the auditor and the district council are:
D Gilbert Appointed Auditor KPMG LLB
100 Temple Street Bristol
BS1 6AG

Simon Davey
Strategic Lead for Finance East Devon District Council Council Offices
Knowle
Sidmouth
Devon
EX10 8HL”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1797813/notice-of-audit-1516.pdf

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: