“South West to showcase the UK’s £50 billion nuclear opportunity in Westminster”

Well, easy to see why so many members of our LEP who have nuclear interests are spinning this! Anyone notice any declarations of interest here? And it seems without our ever being aware of it, our biggest industry is NOT tourism it’s nuclear energy.

“50 billion worth of business opportunities are up-for-grabs for firms who can provide services for the nuclear industry in the south west. And on Monday 11th July 2016, businesses and representatives from the Government will be able to find out more about how they can play their part at a special event in Westminster.

Taking place in the House of Commons, the event: “The South West – Powering the UK’s Nuclear Future” is being hosted by Bridgwater MP Ian Liddell-Grainger, in whose constituency Hinkley Point C is situated. It features high profile speakers Tom Greatrex, former Shadow Energy Minister and now chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, Andrea Leadsom MP, Minister of State for Energy, and Matt Burley, chair of the Nuclear South West Industry Network Board.

The event aims to bring together parliamentarians and south west nuclear industry leaders to set out the economic potential the region has to support the UK energy sector and ensure the Government recognises the unique opportunities that exist in the south west.

Nuclear South West is capitalising on the South West’s unparalleled strength and potential in the global nuclear industry; and generating transformational economic benefits to the UK and regional business community. The facts and figures are:

There will be at least £50billion worth of contracts available to south west companies across 15 projects over the next 20 years in new build, decommissioning and defence.

There are over 180 nuclear companies and organisations in the area, with over 8,000 highly skilled workers;

70% of the UK’s low carbon electricity comes from nuclear power stations; and two new ones are being built at Hinkley Point – creating 25,000 new jobs and £100m to the local economy;

There’s a £1.8bn nuclear defence programme at Devonport in Plymouth; and 44 colleges and training providers are working with Hinkley Point Training Agency.

Matt Burley, Chair of NSW Industry Network Board said: “The future of the nuclear industry in the south west and the scale of financial opportunity that could be unlocked for businesses of different sizes and sectors is enormous.

“We’re working hard to raise awareness and understanding of this opportunity across the region. Businesses are in a fantastic position to take advantage of the national and international nuclear programmes. There are many different services required to support the industry, from equipment suppliers to waste management, and nuclear research facilities to specialist consultancies.”

Ian Liddell-Grainger MP said: “The South West is a global contender in the nuclear energy sector and it offers the potential to create tens of thousands of new jobs and generate billions of pounds for the local and national economy. MPs in our region are committed to supporting and championing the sector. It’s great to see nuclear industry businesses bringing the South West opportunity to Westminster and working with Government to help create the right conditions for growth in the sector – there’s never been a more important time to do this.”

Steve Hindley, Chair of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership said: “The South West is the UK’s leading region in the global nuclear renaissance.

“We’re at the ready to claim first-mover advantage in the UK’s nuclear sector, due to the next generation of power stations being started right here at Hinkley Point C. It’s Europe’s largest engineering project, will generate 25,000 new jobs and £14billion investment.

“It’s not just about Hinkley though. There are 15 nuclear opportunities worth £50 billion in this area; so we’re very excited about our cross-LEP & business–led partnership under the banner of Nuclear South West. We urge our Right Honourable Members to join us in showcasing the South West’s unparalleled strength and potential for transformational growth; right here at the nucleus of the nuclear industry.”

West of England LEP chair, Stephen Robertson, said: “The south west is at the forefront of the UK nuclear industry and is leading the way with research and skills training. With over 180 nuclear companies and organisations already in the south west the potential growth and innovation in this sector is huge. Getting nuclear right in the south west will harness the supply chain potential for local companies of all sizes across the south west.”

Dr Diane Savory OBE, Chair of GFirst LEP, said: “The nuclear-based power generation industry has long been a feature of the Gloucestershire economy and we must ensure that the skills infrastructure supports the growth in the economy, by future proofing and meeting the skills needs of businesses affected by workforce displacement to the demands of the nuclear industry.

“Funds from our Growth Deal have been invested in a Gloucestershire centre of excellence in Renewable Energy, Engineering & Nuclear skills (GREEN) in anticipation of the unprecedented expansion of nuclear, low carbon energy, and engineering in Gloucestershire and the South West. The centre will open in September 2017.”

Nuclear South West (NSW) is a partnership between the nuclear industry network in the south west and the stakeholder alliance of the Local Enterprise Partnerships: Heart of the South West, West of England and GFirst; the academic and skills sector and business support agencies.”

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/south-west-showcase-uk%E2%80%99s-%C2%A350-billion-nuclear-opportunity-westminster

Police and Crime Commissioners should be subject to Local Government Transparency Code

“… The NMA said it welcomed several proposals in the consultation which would strengthen local authorities’ transparency obligations such as plans to publish additional information in areas such as land and buildings, procurement and contracts, and full transparency on revenues received from all services.

It also called for Police and Crime Commissioners to be made subject to the Local Government Transparency Code and insisted that bodies such as the Fire and Rescue Authorities must not be removed from its scope.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27665%3Amedia-call-for-leps-to-be-made-subject-to-local-government-transparency-rules&catid=59&Itemid=27<

The ” clean campaign pledge” – shouldn’t ALL MPs sign it?

:: Stick to the spending limits set by the [Party] headquarters

:: Not co-operate “in any way” with other political parties, their donors, members or active supporters

:: Do “everything in our power” to ensure that supporters’ campaigning on social media is “in good taste”

:: Ensure the campaign stays within “the acceptable limits of political debate”

:: Do “what is right for our party and the country as a whole”

MPs election expenses – not forgotten by Democratic Audit

Probably not good news for Police and Crime Commissioner Hernandez!

With all the constitutional chaos following the EU referendum result,
it’s easy to forget that up to 30 MPs are still being investigated for
breaking election spending limits by twenty police forces across the
country. But we’re still on the case!

Last week we hosted a meeting of politicians and campaigners to talk
about two things:

How can we bring MPs who have broken the rules to justice?
How can we fix the broken election expenses system?

Our friendly legal experts had some good news – there are legal options
to pursue MPs who have broken election spending limits even if the
police aren’t already investigating them! The allegations that the
police are already investigating could just be the tip of the iceberg in
this election expenses scandal.

It shouldn’t take a crack team of investigative journalists to keep our
elections fair and protect democracy. One big obstacle in the way of
holding MPs to account is that election expenses aren’t publicly
available. The only way you can access them is by going down to your
local council offices. We are working behind the scenes to change this
in time for the next general election (whenever that may be!) We will be
talking to the Electoral Commission to put pressure on local councils to
make this vital information available online.

With Brexit and Chilcot dominating the news, the election expenses
scandal could drop off the radar. We won’t let that happen.

Best wishes,

Alexandra Runswick
Director, Unlock Democracy

Cabinet to rubber-stamp devolution deal with no consultation with members or public

“Heart of the South West Formal Devolution Bid (pages 52-56)

This report seeks approval to sign up ‘in principle’ to the pursuit of a Devolution Deal and the creation of a Combined Authority for the Heart of the South West sub- region to administer the powers devolved through the Deal. An ‘in principle’ agreement from all of the authorities, partners and MPs involved in the Heart of the South West devolution process will open up negotiations with Treasury to work towards a deal.”

Click to access cabinet130716combinedagenda.pdf

Cranbrook – “Virtual Town Council Consultation Group”

“VIRTUAL TOWN COUNCIL CONSULTATION GROUP

Do you have something to say, but don’t have the time to attend meetings?

Do you have ideas about how to improve Cranbrook?

Do you have ideas about how you would like to see services provided, changed or improved? …

Then join our Virtual Town Council Consultation Group – which we are setting up in response to residents who have indicated that they would like to be involved in the future of the town but are unable to attend meetings or are unable to become a councillor.

As a member of the Virtual Group we will send you emails asking you for your opinions on a range of topics which will help us and partner organisations make decisions. You decide how often and when you would like to answer.
By becoming a member you will help the Town Council to provide an accessible and responsive service and you will be amongst the first to hear about news and updates.”

If you want to be part of this exciting initiative please email us at clerk@cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjO-2O5Hmj8

But no mention of what happens when the “Virtual Consultation Group” overwhelmingly disagrees with the councillors!

The legal requirements of consultation … watch out, EDDC!

“Clearly in austerity times the moment of reckoning approaches where traditional well tried strategies and tactics of keeping posts vacant, business process/organisation design, efficiencies, productivity improvement, mergers and outsourcing will not alone balance the budget and services will need to be rationed or cut entirely.

Furthermore take it as read if you are cutting a service that will have a detrimental effect on a current service user, it cannot be done without consulting those affected.

At the same time understandably your clients [written for lawyers dealing with local authorities] may be tempted to carry out a low-profile consultation for a number of reasons, not least the cost and fear of agitation of organised and political objections.

Well that’s local government.

[The paper goes on to set out current case law on consultation]

… what does this mean in a nutshell? It means that where there is a duty to consult going through the motions will not do. If there is a prescribed method such as set out in the primary or secondary legislation or by a code it must be followed and at the stage where the consultation feedback can be taken into account in the final decision making. Furthermore the case made clear that while there is no general common law duty to consult persons who may be affected by a measure before it is adopted an obligation to consult may arise because of the common law duty of fairness.

This year (February 2016) the Cabinet Office published guidelines on consultation. These are to be treated as expectations for local government too.

What this now means for consultation

The Courts have made a restatement as to who should be consulted and on what basis for consultation. This is of general application for all consultation. The key message is that consultations must be carried out fairly.

This can be summarised as Who, How, When, What and an Evidence Based Analysis:

1. Who do you consult? – In broad terms it is to let those who have a potential interest in the subject. In terms of who must be consulted the demands of fairness are expected to be somewhat higher when an authority contemplates depriving someone of an existing benefit or advantage than when the claimant is a bare applicant for a future benefit.

2. How? – So if a person is likely to lose something or be worse off, then they should be specifically identified and consulted. In Haringey all those affected were written to and the letters were hand delivered. This is considered to be sound practice. So if you know that an individual or household will be adversely affected an attempt must be made to contact them by preferably personal calling and hand delivered letters or by phone call and this be re-enforced by press releases and street and notice poster media.

Twitter “tweets” or council web pages augmented with Survey Monkey are not good enough on their own. If there are partners involved in the services such as health authorities or the third sector, get them involved and seek their view on the consultation and its message even if they may one day turn out to be objectors better you are on cordial or respectful terms with them.

3. When do you consult? – So when should consultation take place? You have to do it with sufficient time to let people know what you are thinking of doing, telling them what your options are and giving them time to reflect upon it and give their views to you that you can take them into account so:
Firstly – consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage and give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit a person to in the court’s words “give an intelligent consideration and response”.

Secondly – adequate time must be given for consideration and response, and,

Finally – the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory required proposals. This should be evidenced by a briefing document presented to the decision making body

4. On what basis? – The purpose of a statutory duty to consult is to ensure public participation in the local authority’s decision-making process. In order for the consultation to achieve that objective, it must fulfil certain minimum requirements.

Meaningful public participation in the decision-making process, in a context with which the general public cannot be expected to be familiar, requires that the consultees should be provided not only with information about proposals such as a draft scheme or policy, but also with an outline of the realistic alternatives, and an indication of the main reasons for the authority’s adoption of its preferred option.

The courts say that there is an obligation to let consultees know, “what the proposal is and exactly why it is under positive consideration”, and telling them enough (which may be a good deal) to enable them to make an intelligent response”.

5. An Evidence Based Analysis – Consultation will only be of use if the data collected from the consultation is properly handled and objectively managed.

This means there must be a sound methodology for data collection, processing and analysis. Responses must be clearly presented and not cherry picked so as to support a particular preferred approach.

This means the findings of a consultation are backed by evidence and where assumptions are made reasons for doing so are identified such as for example statistics supplied by other accredited organisations such as Government sources.

Consultation plans

What does this mean for services particularly in the context of austerity?

The key message is that the quantity and quality of information may need to be re-examined. Thus any strategy or policy likely to have an impact on the community needs to be founded on proper consultation. This is best done by drawing up a consultation plan.

Methodology of qualitative and quantitative collection handling and analysis needs to be stated. While judges are not expecting a full scale committee report to be sent to the public at large, effective consultation plans will need to have anyone likely to be affected specifically identified and targeted to receive information on the subject matter of the consultation and a strategy worked up on how they can be enabled to take part. …

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27528%3Aconsultation-in-austerity-2016-a-practical-guide&catid=59&Itemid=27

Local Enterprise Partnership scrutiny: Owl says “I told you”!

From Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Accounts Committee Report on Cities and Local Growth:

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

LEPs are led by the private sector, and stakeholders have raised concerns that they are dominated by vested interests that do not properly represent their business communities.

There is a disconnect between decisions being made by local business leaders and accountability working via local authorities. It is therefore crucial that LEPs demonstrate a high standard of governance and transparency over decision making, at least equal to the minimum standards set out by government in the assurance framework.

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

The fact that 42% of LEPs do not publish a register of interests is clearly a risk to ensuring that decisions are made free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

The varying presentation and detail of financial information across LEPs also makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or make comparisons across LEPs on how they spend public money.

Recommendation: The Department should enforce the existing standards of transparency, governance and scrutiny before allocating future funding to LEPs. LEPs themselves also need to be more transparent to the public by, for example, publishing financial information.

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

Public Accounts Committee sees BIG problems with devolution scrutiny

FINALLY MPs WAKE UP TO MAJOR FLAWS IN DEVOLUTION PLANS! BUT IS IT TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?

MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have stated they have little confidence in scrutiny arrangements being put in place around the government’s flagship devolution deals, and called for these to be improved in order to protect taxpayers’ interests.

A report by the Public Accounts Committee published on 1 July, warned that, following the abolition of the Audit Commission, the existing arrangements for local scrutiny of devolved functions must be made more robust.

Examining devolution agreements in 10 areas – Greater Manchester, Cornwall, Sheffield City Region, the North East, Tees Valley, Liverpool City Region, the West Midlands, East Anglia, Greater Lincolnshire, and the West of England – the PAC said local authority scrutiny was constrained.

The devolution deals for these areas, while all bespoke, share a number of elements, including devolved responsibilities in areas of local transport, business support and further education.

Committee chair Meg Hillier said English devolution represented a big change to the way large sums of taxpayers’ money is spent. “It is therefore alarming to report that, as we hurtle towards mayoral elections planned for next year [in these combined authority areas], so many questions still hang over the process,” she added.

“Parliament and the public must be assured that devolved spending is subject to effective scrutiny and there are clear lines of accountability for delivering value for money. “These vital arrangements are still very much work-in-progress and must be confirmed as a matter of urgency.”

The committee recommended that government should set out by November how it intends to ensure local scrutiny of devolved functions and funding will be well supported.

The Cities and Local Growth report highlighted that, currently, local auditors focus on individual bodies’ financial statements and arrangements for securing value for money.

“It is not yet clear whether there will be any sort of independent institutional scrutiny of devolution deals as a whole, or what form this might take,” it stated. “As more powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved to the local level, we are therefore concerned that a gap in the scrutiny of value for money might be appearing.”

The report, which the committee acknowledged was being carried out in an evolving policy context, highlighted this was an untested policy area. There were already clear tensions emerging in the deals, with evidence that some deals may disintegrate. There should be greater clarity from ministers about what they are hoping to achieve, Hillier added.

“The government has set an ambitious timetable to implement devolution deals but it must not skip over crucial details in a blinkered race to the tape. “The interests of taxpayers are paramount and we urge the government to act on our recommendations now to ensure devolution fully serves those interests.”

A DCLG spokesman said the report “misses the point of devolution, which is to end the one-size-fits-all approaches of the past and hand power from Whitehall to local people who know their areas best”.

He added: “We’ve agreed 10 landmark devolution deals covering nearly 30% of the country, with local leaders accountable to their residents including through the election of mayors to oversee the new powers.

“This is a voluntary, bottom-up process based on local proposals demonstrating strong local agreement and clear accountability.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/pac-raises-doubts-about-devolution-scrutiny

Torbay council Scrutiny Committee being blocked from seeing report on cuts

Bet they don’t get to see devolution reports either!

How similar to East Devon.

“ANGRY councillors who say ‘the future of Torbay council is at stake’ claim they are being blocked from seeing a vital new report.

A row erupted over the timescale of the efficiency plan which will give details of cutbacks and savings, enabling the council to receive the next four years’ funding from central government.

The overview and scrutiny committee demanded mayor Gordon Oliver keeps them updated with the detailed efficiency plan after hearing they would not have sight of it until eight days before final decisions are made.

The council is required to have an efficiency plan in place by September 2016, to receive a four-year revenue support grant settlement from the Department for Communities and Local Government. It has to published and sent to DCLG by October 14.

However, the overview and scrutiny committee were angry when they were told they would have just eight days to scrutinise the plan before making recommendations to full council.

Cllr Chris Lewis said: “The future of Torbay Council is at stake. We are making lots of cuts and we should have started this work months ago. How can we have just eight days to look at it?”

Mayor Oliver told the committee: “We have spent months working on this. Officers have been left to make their judgement as to how to balance the books correctly.”

However, the report would not be ready before July.

Then, before the full report can be shared by councillors, it would have to go to the mayor’s executive group in August, before coming to overview and scrutiny eight days before full council has to vote on it.

But councillors are asking for the report to be ‘drip-fed’ to them to enable them to scrutinise the details of cutbacks.

Cllr Alan Tyerman said: “We are going around in circles here. After the August meeting it needs to come to overview and scrutiny as soon as it can so we can understand what is in the plan. I feel we are getting muddled here, but we need to know what is in the plan. We have to have involvement in this vital piece of work. If we only have sight of it at the last minute it won’t work.”

Torbay Council chief executive Steve Parrock said there were 42 pieces of work involved.

But, Cllr Nick Bye replied: “It feels like there is some political blockage in sharing this important work.

“It is going to be a pile of poo anyway, but the danger is we won’t be allowed to have an impact.” Cllr Bye felt there was a political reason why councillors were being blocked, but mayor Oliver said: “There is no Agatha Christie plot here I am aware of.”

The committee unanimously voted information be shared to them as early as possible on elements of the plans which are non-controversial. And that as soon as it is complete and gone to the mayor’s executive group, it be shared with them formally.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/councillors-anger-over-time-span-to-study-vital-new-report/story-29452846-detail/story.html

Devon and Somerset Devolution: would you buy a used car from these people?

DID YOU SPOT THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM?

No members of the business- and developer-heavy Local Enterprise Partnership in the video – particularly the LEP Chairman, who is Chairman of Midas house builders and the half-dozen with vested interests in nuclear power and those University chiefs who want to ensure they get all the money for skills and training! Together THEY make up the majority of the Board taking decisions, NOT councillors.

And that LOVELY bit from Diviani about other councillors getting a chance to comment AFTER this loathsome group has created its “blueprint” for devolution in its own image.

Will the demand for ” sovreignty” mean an end to secondary legislation?

This was published by the Daily Telegraph a few days ago, and now Brexit is a reality it should be read with new eyes:

“Perhaps the most powerfully held aspiration for Brexiteers is to restore UK parliamentary sovereignty: in the words of Michael Gove, to “take back control” and, of John Redwood, for Britain to “be a democracy again .

But what would this “taking back control” mean in practice? Brexiteers imply that while EU legislation is “imposed”, Westminster parliamentarians control non-EU law-making through active debates and votes.

Except they don’t, because for voters what impacts on their lives most is not primary legislation – Bills – on which parliamentarians can vote, but the meaningful detail of the Bills, which Whitehall civil servants and ministers increasingly choose to hide in secondary legislation (sometimes called delegated legislation of Statutory Instruments – SIs).

The scale of this was estimated for the Lords by former minister Baroness Andrews:

80 per cent of the laws as they impact on individuals are transported through statutory instruments, whether that is welfare benefits, food safety, planning requirements or competition across the NHS…”

Essentially Whitehall civil servants and ministers are defining important laws as “secondary legislation” in order to subvert the ability of parliament to choose whether to pass or not to pass laws.

Brexit is no guarantee of British control of its own destiny or of parliamentary sovereignty because our parliament is not in control.

SIs are rarely debated, and historic Westminster procedure means they cannot be amended. The idea that parliament meaningfully votes to “pass” them is no more real than the idea that the Queen gets to decide the content of the Queens Speech.

The problem is not new. An official Parliamentary report published in 2011 found that the last time the House of Commons rejected a SI was in 1979; it appears from the Hansard record that the rejection of this SI may have been a mistake.

The House of Lords, despite a 1994 resolution affirming its ‘unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation’, has voted down secondary legislation on only three occasions in the last half-century.

That one reason why the Lords’ hard line on the tax credits SIs in October 2015 caused such consternation in government and David Cameron to appoint Lord Strathclyde to review Lords powers and recommend further action.

The erosion of parliamentary sovereignty by the growing use of secondary legislation and “Henry VIII clauses” (which give ministers powers to change primary legislation through Statutory Instruments and thereby bypass the need for parliamentary votes) to reduce the parliamentary accountability of ministers and Whitehall civil servants was dubbed “The New Despotism” in a book by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England and former Attorney General, published as long ago as 1929.

This would not change outside the EU. The problem was just as real before Britain joined the European Community.

Labour MP Willie Hamilton told parliament in the 1971 European Community accession debate:

“A great deal goes on even now under our own eyes that we do not know about… some 2,000 Statutory Instruments, which have legislative effect, go through this House every year and only a handful of them are debated. This is already government by default. In that sense this House, voluntarily and negligently, has surrendered a large part of its sovereignty to the Executive…. Much play has been made of the decision-making by the bureaucrats in Brussels. Things are not as simple as that. What about our own faceless bureaucrats in Whitehall? What part does this House play now in making policy decisions and in framing legislation? We have none at all. Everybody is consulted except us. Therefore, let us not pretend there will be any serious derogation there when we get into Europe.”

Some Brexiteers, notably Douglas Carswell, have a track-record of championing democratic accountability in Britain’s Westminster parliament. But they are the exceptions. Most are happy to indulge a Westminster parliamentary processes and rules more akin to Mornington Crescent than to cricket. Westminster “parliamentary sovereignty” would be no more certain of “returning control” to British voters, than a sovereign British space programme would be of sending a union-jack adorned rocket to Mars and getting it back in one piece.

That is nothing to do with the EU – if voters do back Brexit to “take back control” they could find themselves holding a political pudding whose democratic promise has been significantly over-egged.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/19/brexit-wont-return-power-to-mps-in-parliament-because-parliament/

Hinkley C: delay piles up on delay

“EDF’s nuclear plant at Hinkley Point could face further delays after its workers launched legal action against the company in French courts and asked for the project to be put off.

The Works Council at EDF claims the energy firm has refused to grant access to key documents and that staff have been left unable to form a clear view on Hinkley.

The plant was due to be running by 2017 but the company is now aiming for completion by 2025, and has yet to make its final decision on how to raise the £18billion needed.

The decision was due in May, but delayed to consult the unions. Some representatives of EDF workers have asked for Hinkley to be put off for another three years – something the French energy company does not wish to do.

Their concerns echo those of senior managers at EDF, who last week wrote to the Energy and Climate Change Committee calling for Hinkley to be postponed.

In May, EDF’s UK boss Vincent De Rivaz faced questions from MPs over its failure to reach a funding decision last month, as had been promised.

If EDF fails to make its decision by September, it will be called back before the select committee again in October.

Jean-Luc Magnaval, secretary of the EDF workers’ committee, has said that even if judges force EDF to hand over the documents in question, the unions will struggle to come to a decision by their set deadline of July 4.

EDF said it had supplied comprehensive information on the project to the unions and participated in meetings to enable representatives to reach a decision in time.

A spokesman for EDF said: ‘EDF is confident in the quality of the information it has provided to the [union] in support of the Hinkley Point C project.’”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3657038/Threat-delays-Hinkley-Point-Nuclear-plant-workers-launch-leagal-action-against-EDF.html

Lycamobile (one of the biggest donors to the Conservative Party: how do you get information on its UK business?

19 Lycamobile officials in France have been arrested in money laundering investigations.

Here is how ine UK person’s attempt to find out what goes on with the company in the UK went:

Dear National Crime Agency,

I note in recent revelations published by Buzzfeed news concerning Lycamobile, allegations that “the international telecoms group employs three cash couriers to drop rucksacks stuffed with hundreds of thousands of pounds twice a day at Post Offices scattered across London”. (See *)

Buzzfeed quote a statement by a former manager, “The services would be intangible – consulting or IT services, for example. It would all be billed to London.”

In Lycamobile UK’s most recent annual accounts (**), filed at Companies House… the auditors identify significant sums for which the audit records are inadequate, including “an amount of £134,133,856 owed by related parties for which the audit evidence available to us was limited because of the complex nature of the related party structure the company operators within”.

Given the involvement of UK banks, the use of intangible services in London to spend the money deposited by Lycamobile, and the qualifications to Lycamobile UK’s accounts, please could you disclose to me;

1) Confirm or deny the National Crime Agency are involved in the investigation into alleged international money laundering by Lycamobile in London. If not, please could you indicate who is?
2) Confirm or deny the co-operation of Barclays Bank with any investigation into money laundering via UK bank accounts
3) The number of corresponding arrests made in the UK

France’s Parquet National Financier;-

“On Wednesday and Thursday, 19 people suspected of being involved in a money-laundering system implicating Lycamobile and Lycamobile Services were arrested. The arrests were part of a Paris judicial investigation into money laundering and VAT fraud. Several places in Paris and its outskirts were raided and police seized about 130,000 euros in cash and 850,000 euros from bank accounts. Nine people were brought in front of a judge on Friday and charged with money laundering among other things, and eight were released on bail while one man was remanded in custody. The charges relate to money laundering of at least 17 million euros and VAT fraud of several million euros”.
Yours faithfully,

P. John”
* https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-…
** https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/compa…

And the reply was:

OFFICIAL

Dear P. John

Thank you for contacting the National Crime Agency (NCA).

NCA is not listed in Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and as such is not obliged to respond to Freedom of Information requests. NCA is also not listed as a ‘Scottish Public Authority’ in the Freedom of Information (Scotland Act 2002).

Any information from, or relating to NCA has an absolute exemption from disclosure by other public authorities by virtue of Section 23 of the Act (as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013).

From time to time NCA will make limited information available on the web site http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk.

Whilst we will not respond to specific requests, we will consider written suggestions about information we may consider publishing in the future.

For more information about the Freedom of Information Act, please contact the Office of the Information Commissioner, or view their web site at http://www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Public Information Compliance Unit
NCA”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lycamobile_3

Former editor of “The Independent” thinks party politics is dead and democracy is broken

“So here is the checklist: Conservative Party: split; Labour Party: in disarray; Liberal Democrats: severe losses.

That isn’t the end of it. There is another serious development running in parallel: the decline in people’s trust in their political leaders. Which is cause, and which is consequence, it is impossible to say.

What is certain, however, is that the systematic, shameless spinning and fear-mongering of the Remain and Leave campaigns has further reduced the respect in which our aged political system is held.

The truth is that the party system – a part of our everyday lives since Labour formed its first government in 1924 – is tottering and will soon collapse. …

… I hope myself that the ‘new’ would have three characteristics. First, the political process would be more consultative than it is at present. To this end I would favour a further expansion of the work of the parliamentary select committees. These are the bodies that have recently held Mike Ashley of Sports Direct and Philip Green, the former owner of BHS, to account. They should hold hearings in regional centres as well as in the Palace of Westminster.

Second, MPs should be subject to term limits, which would mean that they could not stand for re-election to the House of Commons more than, say, twice. This would prevent the creation of a political class. Politics would no longer be a lifetime career but a public duty.

And third, citizens who have done something with their lives other than politics should be willing to stand for Parliament knowing that with term limits, it would not be a job for life.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-founding-editor-of-the-independent-thinks-democracy-is-broken-and-he-wants-to-know-what-you-a7096311.html

Latest information on EDDC and devolution – done deal

Pages 104-116 here:

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

NOTE: THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO CONSULTATION WITH RESIDENTS ON ANY PART OF THIS DEAL WHICH IS BEING RAILROADED THROUGH EACH MEMBER COUNCIL

A summary:

Our Prospectus for Prosperity was submitted to Government at the end of February 2016. Since then the Partnership has pressed the Secretary of State to enter into discussion with its negotiation team to secure a deal for the Heart of the South West.

Following an invitation from the Secretary of State, on the 25th May 2016, leaders from the upper tier authorities met with the Greg Clarke, Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to seek his view on our next steps forward.

The Secretary of State made the following comments:

Geography – the Devon and Somerset area is agreed as the appropriate scale. The proposal must clearly demonstrate why this is the right geography for the Devolution agreement and all councils and MPs must support the proposal.

Combined Authority – the Partnership will move forward into the negotiation process based on a Combined Authority model. The Mayoral issue may be considered at a later stage, within the timeline agreed by our Partnership. A Mayor will not be imposed or be a pre-condition of any initial deal.

Extent of the deal – areas that have agreed to have a Mayor will get more powers than a non-Mayoral Combined Authority deal. However, the negotiation process will be an opportunity to push the limits of this initial deal, and the process should be viewed as being incremental.

Timeline – we will still work towards an Autumn Statement timeline for the announcement of an initial deal.

Growth Deal 3 – the LEP would not be penalised in Growth Deal 3 negotiations because the area does not have a Devolution deal with a Mayor. The decision for allocation will be based purely on the quality of the Growth Deal bid.

The Secretary of State went on to advise that if the Partnership, backed by each Council and MPs, would sign up to the principle of creating a Combined Authority by the end of July 2016 he would arrange for the Treasury to open up negotiations towards a deal.

This report seeks approval to sign up ‘in principle’ to the pursuit of a Devolution Deal and the creation of a Combined Authority for the Heart of the South West sub-region to administer the powers devolved through the Deal.

An ‘in principle’ agreement from all of the authorities, partners and MPs involved in the Heart of the South West devolution process will open up negotiations with Treasury to work towards a deal.

Any final devolution deal with government will be subject to further approval/ratification by all partners individually. A Heads of Terms document will be used as a negotiating tool to seek additional powers and funding to accelerate the delivery of 163,000 new jobs, 179,000 new homes and an economy of over £53bn GVA by 2030.

It should be noted that there is no intention for the Combined Authority to take existing powers or funding from local authorities, or existing city deal governance structures, without the explicit agreement of those constituent local authorities. More detailed work will be undertaken to identify the decision-making powers and the constitution of the Combined Authority, and all partners will be fully involved and consulted on these arrangements as they develop.”

Political spending US-style

Remember £15,000 for a jar of Hugo Swire’s honey in 2014:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/10944187/City-Diary-After-dinner-auction-could-turn-into-a-honey-trap-for-the-Tories.html

and Hugo’s remarks about people on benefits at the auction he chaired in 2015:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/10944187/City-Diary-After-dinner-auction-could-turn-into-a-honey-trap-for-the-Tories.html

Owl, having read below about how Donald Trump manages his election expenses, wonders how much of the battle bus expenses ended up back in donors pockets.

“Donald Trump loves to brag about his wealth. But as he heads into the general election in November, his campaign’s bank account is almost empty (for a presidential candidate) — he has just $1.3 million on hand, nearly 40 times less than presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

And a lot of the money the Trump campaign has spent is going directly back to Donald Trump. In May, according to Federal Election Commission filings, Trump spent about $1 million of his campaign’s funds on products and services from business he owns, including:

$423,372 to rent out Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach club
$349,540 to Tag Air, his fleet of private jets
$29,715 to rent out the Trump International Golf Club
$35,845 to rent out the Trump National Golf Club
$72,800 in rent on Trump Tower

Earlier this year, the Trump campaign spent thousands to stay at Trump hotels, eat at Trump restaurants, and serve Trump bottled water at their events. The Associated Press calculated that, in all, $6 million of Trump campaign money has gone back to the Trump Organization.

Campaigns are required to pay the fair market value for the goods and services they purchase, even if they’re paying a company owned by the candidate. (Otherwise, Trump’s companies could give him a big advantage by allowing him to use facilities for free, while Clinton, who is not a real estate magnate, has to pay for venues where she holds her events.) Trump, naturally, wants to host events at properties he owns.

Since Trump’s campaign funds still mostly come from a loan from the candidate himself, a lot of this spending is just passing Trump’s money around. But as the campaign goes on and Trump seeks out more donations, some of the money from his supporters will end up flowing right back to him.”

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11988298/trump-campaign-spending-trump

What do we now about the expenses scandals and what do we still need to know?

A site that gives information and answers:

“The Electoral Commission is investigating. So too, are more than a dozen police forces. So far 21 local constabularies have been granted an extra year by magistrates to complete their investigations. So while we wait to hear back from the Met there are still a number of questions that need to be answered.”

http://www.unlockdemocracy.org/election-expenses

One of the largest donors to (both factions of) the Tory Party arrested in France over money laundering allegations

“Nineteen people working for the biggest donor to the Conservative Party have been arrested in France in connection with a multi-million pounds tax and money laundering scandal.

All are linked to Lycamobile, the multinational telecoms giant, which has given at least £2.2m to Prime Minister David Cameron’s party since 2011, including half-a-million last year alone.

Lycamobile also allowed Boris Johnson to use one of their call centres during his successful 2012 campaign to become Mayor of London. …

… Mr Jochimek [a director] appeared in a Paris criminal court on Friday, along with nine others who have been charged with a variety of offences related to financial fraud.

They specifically relate to alleged illicit transactions of 13 million pounds, but the French authorities believe the figure could be far higher.

It follows an investigation by BuzzFeed that caught Lycamobile ‘employing three cash couriers to drop rucksacks stuffed with hundreds of thousands of pounds twice a day at Post Offices scattered across London,’ according to the news site.

Bundles of cash were seized in raids on Lycamobile’s Paris headquarters, and a series of residential and business addresses across the city, while the company’s French bank accounts have since been frozen.

Lycamobile’s Sri Lankan-born owner, Subaskaran Allirajah, is a member of the exclusive Leader’s Group for top Tory donors.

He has dined with Mr Cameron or members of his cabinet twice in the past six months, and is also close to Mr Johnson, after bankrolling his campaign.

None of those involved admit any wrongdoing, with Lycamobile previously claiming that the filmed cash drops were just ‘day to day banking’.

But according to Buzzfeed investigators the French authorities have identified money coming from shell companies suspected of acting as fronts for ‘various networks laundering profits from crime.’

Buzzfeed probed 19 companies that allegedly funnelled tens of millions of euros into Lycamobile’s French accounts.

All but one ‘was registered at PO boxes, vacant offices, derelict buildings, or a construction site.’ David Cameron pledged to crack down on money laundering and offshore tax avoidance at the global anti-corruption summit in London last month.

He said he wanted to ‘send a clear message to the corrupt that there is no home for them here’.

According to the Buzzfeed investigation, Lycamobile is selling its prepaid calling cards on the black market in Paris for cash, and is then using a ‘a vast system of false billing’ to invoice fake companies for the sales in order to conceal other illicit payments.

Lycamobile’s own auditors declared over the past two years that they could not account for total of £646 million that moved through 10 companies in its complex corporate network.

Lycamobile is the world’s largest mobile virtual network operator, buying international airtime in bulk and selling it to millions of customers around the world on relatively cheap prepaid calling cards.

It has reported an annual turnover of 1.5 billion pounds, while legally avoiding corporation tax in the UK and Ireland by moving its money to the tax haven of Madeira.

Following the original Buzzfeed enquiry, the Labour Party wrote to the Conservatives demanding that the party freeze all donations from Lycamobile pending further investigations, but the letter was ignored. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3649301/Offices-Conservative-Party-s-biggest-donor-Lycamobile-raided-French-police-nine-people-charged-suspicion-money-laundering-tax-fraud.html

“Cronyism in the south west”

Something we all know about in East Devon!

“Cronyism in the South West”
The sheer amount of unsuitable and damaging development that has been pushed through against all objections in my home town of Totnes, but also throughout the south west, is making me question the role of cronyism in the deals made.

It starts at the very top of course in government, but appears to have sucked up many of our more august bodies that we are more used to seeing as our defenders and protection, into its net. The National Trust for example, now has a right wing business leader as its head. I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that this is as a result of any wrong doing, but I question why he is there, when he comes with no history of interest or involvement in conservation or the heritage sector. It is a coincidence of course that the National Trust appear to be engaged recently in the development business themselves, aiming to sell land, given to them in trust in Bovery Tracey and also in Somerset, for housing. To say local people aren’t happy is a bit of an understatement.

Natural England also, is now headed up by a right wing business man, an ex-developer actually, with little to no interest up to now in the environment, or preserving the countryside, he was too busy working to concrete it over as head of Linden Homes. George Monbiot describes his appointment as, ‘The government wants a chairman who can flog nature and have chosen a Tory party donor with a background in investment banking and housing developments.’

So our conservation and heritage organisations appear to be headed by cronies, our secretive Local Enterprise Partnership appears to be also. This is the self-appointed group tasked with pouring vast amounts of public money into encouraging enterprise and business down here and with running our devolution bid. The fact that the majority of those on the board come from the construction and housing sector and a few who are involved in weapons manufacturing won’t come as a surprise when you see that our devolution bid, which they mostly engineered, is very heavy on giant construction projects, which the board’s companies appear to profit from and very weak on tourism, farming and sustainability. This bid is about growth. ‘I want to only build structures that you can see from space,’ the chair is quoted as saying. The fact that this undemocratically elected group hold their meetings in private, have no head office, very little accountability and have managed to keep the lid on their activities very successfully is worrying and the ultimate in cronyism.

This culture goes down the line; housing developments pushed through when they are so obviously damaging and ridiculous. In Totnes, Great Court Farm was sold to developers in very suspect circumstances in my opinion. It is the last dairy farm in Totnes, the home to a fourth generation of farmers, a totally unsuitable spot for yet more mass building in this beleaguered town. The access is terrible, the logistics ridiculous and yet it was pushed through by a combination of cronyism and mis-management. The people who suffer are the people who always suffer when cronyism is allowed to flourish and that’s us – everyone else and in this instance the farmer and his family and the people of Totnes, who see their landscape the plaything of those in power.

Across the county, across the country in fact, the same story is played out endlessly. Local people left shocked and devastated as those in power find the wherewithal to circumnavigate due process and make an absolute fortunes flogging nature and our land to line their own pockets.”

https://allengeorgina.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/comment-piece-for-western-morning-news-cronyism/