The report referred to in the post below deserves attentive reading:
Category Archives: Transparency
Finally a way to publicly scrutinise Local Enterprise Partnerships and other quangos?
Owl says; But will the likes of Diviani (LEP) and Randall-Johnson (CCG) be in favour of more (or rather, any) scrutiny?
“Meg Hillier has told Public Finance that audit of local government spending needs to be more “transparent” for an increasingly “savvy” British public.
“I think the British public are much more savvy about things – they don’t trust the authority to spend things well,” she said to PF.
Since the Audit Commission was formally dissolved in 2015 “there isn’t the same level of transparency locally”, Hillier said.
Local authority finances “used to be well demonstrated,” she said, “so I think [making them more transparent again] is just something that we need to keep pushing on.”
Although she said it was “early days” and did not wish to say who she had been speaking to, she said she saw devolution as an opportunity to improve closer examination of how public money was spent.
“At metro mayor level or at a bigger regional level there is an opportunity for value for money audit and analysis because there are certain discreet pots of money coming down for very particular projects, so it’s easier to track it through from the day to day budget value for money,” she said.
Hillier was speaking to PF after the shadow communities secretary Andrew Gwynne told the Labour Party conference last month: “We will give local authorities public accounts committees to improve local government spending decisions.”
Local PACs was one of the Labour Party’s pledges in its 2015 manifesto so that “every pound spend by local bodies creates value for money for local taxpayers”.
Hillier said she was not able to give a clear view on what her vision for the extra layer of scrutiny of local government finances would be but did not believe local PACs were necessarily the answer as they would require “huge infrastructure”.
“I am not advocating we go out and set up lots of mini NAOs [National Audit Offices] – there is a bit of realism in this,” she added.
But Ed Hammond, director of Centre for Public Scrutiny, which has long been an advocate of local PACs, told PF that there is an “urgent need” for such bodies.
“Local PACs will be bodies led by elected councillors, empowered to follow the public pound across a local area, cutting across different organisations to get a real picture of the value for money of public services,” he suggested.
“In a world of increasingly complex decision making, and with greater pressure on finances, there is an urgent need for these bodies to give the public the assurance they need on the services they rely on.”
An Institute for Government report, out on Monday,
Click to access Accountability_modern_government_WEB.pdf
said that government should “review the case for setting up local Public Accounts Committees” to “provide new capacity to local government to scrutinise performance across the breadth of services offered in a region”.
These could initially be trialed in mayoral combined authorities, the IfG suggested.
Local PACs were discusssed in an IfG-led Twitter discussion on the report.
@ben_guerin
We also need to scrutinise links between local public services like health and social care: review case for setting up local PACs, initially in mayoral combined authorities #IfGaccountability
The Conservative mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority James Palmer believed there was already enough local authority financial scrutiny in place.
Although, he suggested if more fiscal devolution was handed down to metro mayors then “that of course must come with the necessary level of local governance and scrutiny”.
“Whether that comes in the form of a local public accounts committee is of course a discussion that would need to be had as part of further devolved powers.”
Northern metro mayors recently called for post-Brexit EU replacement funding to go straight to the regions, bypassing Whitehall.
Chief executive of the Localis think-tank Jonathan Werran recently wrote a blog for PF on the future of fiscal devolution – see here:
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2018/10/running-out-road-time-change
Pigs and troughs …. MP outside interests and payments: some snouts much deeper in the trough than others)
They get £75 – £150 for filling out Parliamentary surveys about what they think!!! Each one taking 30-60 minutes!!!
“Posh watches, football tickets and VIP trips – what your MPs get for free
Expensive gifts, football tickets, all-paid trips abroad, second salaries and fat dividends – all the perks and benefits enjoyed by your local MP.
Second jobs, cash for surveys and income from company shares, donors and second homes – these are just some of the ways your local MP makes extra money.
Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall’s political elite – in line with the rest of parliament – routinely lay out in full their financial affairs for all to see to maintain openness and transparency.
Some through their powerful connections, seniority and expertise gain more than others – whether that be a gift from a wealthy client, cash donations from the private sector, wages from another high-flying job or all-paid for trips abroad to promote UK affairs.
Those deep inside the inner Whitehall circle are REALLY pulling in the mega bucks.
Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson was recently thrown back in the spotlight after it was revealed he’s being paid £22,916.66 a month until July 2019 by the Daily Telegraph – an annual pay packet of £274,999 – to write articles.
Plymouth Live lifts the lid on the latest round of financial declarations, dated October 1, unveiled by Parliament.
Johnny Mercer – Plymouth Moor View [Conservative]
The Tory backbencher declared in parliament’s latest financial log he’s landed a second job earning £85,000 a year – in return for 20 hours work a month.
Ex soldier Johnny has taken up the role of non-executive director for military veterans support company Crucial Academy Ltd.
That’s on top of his paycheck as a member of parliament – £77,379 – taking his total annual earnings to £162,379.
Mr Mercer, who employs his wife Felicity Cornelius-Mercer as his Principal Secretary, has also publicly declared he was paid £300 by the BBC in March this year for a three-hour appearance at the BBC Free Thinking Festival.
He also had accommodation and travel funded by the Bahrain Embassy from April 5 to 9 this year so he could attend the opening of the UK/Bahrain Naval Base, meet with Government Ministers, as well as members of the Federal National Council and senior business figures in order to build on the ‘bilateral relationship’.
Luke Pollard – Plymouth Sutton and Devonport [Labour]
Mr Pollard – elected in the 2017 snap General Election – has declared he owns a house in Plymouth worth more than £100,000.
Gary Streeter – South West Devon [Conservative]
Mr Streeter, who employs his wife Janet Streeter as a part-time Junior Parliamentary Researcher, has made extra cash filling out online Government surveys.
The senior Tory politician also declared a £3,500 watch bought for him as a Christmas present from Plymouth millionaires Michael and Diane Hockin.
Mr Streeter’s cash for surveys
9 October 2017, received £150 for completing July and September 2017 parliamentary panel surveys. Hours: approx. 90 mins (45 mins each).
20 November 2017, received £75 for completing October 2017 parliamentary panel survey. Hours: 45 mins.
5 January 2018, received £100 for completing November 2017 parliamentary panel survey. Hours: approx. 45 mins.
5 February 2018, received £100 for completing January 2018 parliamentary panel survey. Hours: approx. 45 mins.
14 March 2018, received £75 for completing February 2018 parliamentary panel survey. Hours: approx. 45 mins.
19 April 2018, received £75 for completing March 2018 parliamentary panel survey. Hours: approx. 45 mins.
25 May 2018, received £75 for completing April 2018 parliamentary panel survey. Hours: approx. 45 mins.
29 June 2018, received £75 for completing May 2018 parliamentary panel survey. Hours: approx. 45 mins.
13 August 2018, received £75 for completing June 2018 parliamentary panel survey. Hours: approx. 45 mins.
Sarah Wollaston – Totnes [Conservative]
Ms Wollaston, Tory chair of the Liaison Committee and the Health Select Committee in the House of Commons, had no financial declarations to declare.
Anne Marie Morris – Newton Abbot – [Conservative]
The former lawyer owns two flats in London and a house in Surrey which generate income.
The Tory MP has a non-paid for position for marketing consultancy firm Manteion Ltd.
She is also a ‘non-practising’ member of the Law Society of England and Wales, the Chartered Institute of Marketing and the European Mentoring and Coaching Council.
Ms Marie Morris is also an unpaid director of the Small Business Bureau.
From March 2017, she became a non-paid director of the Genesis Initiative; a body that seeks to represent small business interests of European businesses.
Ben Bradshaw – Exeter [Labour] note: it does not say here that Mr Bradshaw donates all recent MP pay rises to charity
The Labour MP has made extra cash each month filling out ‘opinion’ surveys.
Mr Bradshaw is also a member of the Humboldt Advisory Board, at Humboldt University, in Berlin.
He wrote in his financial declaration: “Where possible, I attend annual Advisory Board meetings in Berlin, the costs of which are met by the university.”
Mr Bradshaw’s cash for surveys
Payment from ComRes, Coveham House, Downside Bridge Road, Cobham KT11 3EP, for opinion surveys:
12 June 2017, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins.
22 August 2017, payment of £50. Hours: 30 mins.
22 September 2017, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins.
29 September 2017, payment of £150. Hours: 1 hr.
17 November 2017, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins.
14 March 2018, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins
16 April 2018, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins.
22 May 2018, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins.
25 June 2018, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins.
23 July 2018, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins.
27 August 2018, payment of £75. Hours: 30 mins.
13 September 2018, payment of £100. Hours: 30 mins.
Geoffrey Cox QC – Torridge and West Devon
Geoffrey Cox has been MP for Torridge and West Devon since 2005 and is said to be the highest earning MP in the House of Commons, thanks to his other role as a barrister.
Mr Cox has declared hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees paid to him by solicitor firms in return for hundreds of hours worth of work over the last year.
He owns a cottage and farmland in West Devon and owns shares in an international law firm and a property company.
Geoffrey Cox’s vast legal fees
Payments from Messrs. Janes, solicitors. Address: 17 Waterloo Place, London SW17 4AR: 8 December 2017, received £24,750 for legal services provided between 1 September 2016 and 1 October 2017. Hours: 40 hrs approx.
31 December 2017, received £3,000 for legal services provided between 4 and 7 November 2017. Hours: 5 hrs approx.
31 January 2018, received £5,000 for legal services provided between 1 December 2017 and 31 January 2018. Hours: 8 hrs approx.
16 May 2018, received £4,500 plus VAT for legal services provided between 1 September 2017 and 31 May 2018. Hours: 9 hrs approx.
13 June 2018, received £5,750 plus VAT for legal services provided between 14 March and 22 May 2018. Hours: 10 hrs approx.
Payments from Messrs. Travers, Thorp, Alberga, Attorneys. Address: Harbour Place, 2nd Floor, PO Box 472, 103 South Church Street, Grand Cayman KY1 1106: 5 February 2018, received £40,000 for legal services provided between 1 September 2017 and 18 February 2018. Hours: 60 hrs approx.
Payments from Bachubhai Munim & Co Advocates & Solicitors, 312, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021: 27 November 2017, received £85,387.50 for legal services provided between 14 February 2017 and 12 November 2017. Hours: 170 hrs approx.
31 July 2018, received £12,500 (no VAT) for work undertaken between 1 November 2017 and 30 June 2018. Hours: 25 hrs.
15 November 2017, received £3,333.33 from Registrar of Criminal Appeals, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL, for legal services provided between 1 January 2016 and 15 December 2016. Hours: 10 hrs approx.
Payments from Oracle Solicitors, 182-184 Edgware Road, London W2 2DS: 15 December 2017, received £119,733.33 for legal services provided between 1 July 2016 and 30 November 2017. Hours: 350 hrs approx.
15 May 2018, received £119,733.33 for legal services provided between 1 May 2016 and 30 April 2018 and continuing. Hours: 300 hrs approx.
31 August 2018, received £88,602.67 plus VAT for legal services provided between 1 March and 9 July 2018. Hours: 300 hrs.
Payments from LK Baltica Solicitors, 4th Floor, Kings Buildings, 16 Smith Square, London SW1P 3HQ: 14 March 2018, received £2,500 for legal services provided between 1 and 31 March 2018. Hours: 5 hrs approx.
13 April 2018, received £3,000 for legal services provided between 1 March and 30 April 2018. Hours: 5 hrs approx.
15 May 2018, received £6,737.50 for legal services provided between 1 February and 30 April 2018. Hours: 10 hrs approx.
16 July 2018, received £2,475 plus VAT for work undertaken between 1 April and 30 June 2018. Hours: 5 hrs.
Payments from Messrs Rainer Hughes, Oak House, 46 Crossway, Shenfield, CM15 8QY: 16 July 2018, received £1,000 plus VAT for work undertaken between 21 September and 12 December 2011. Hours: 2 hrs.
Mel Stride – Central Devon
Tory Paymaster General Mel Stride holds a stake of more than 15 per cent in Venture Marketing Group Ltd – described by parliamentary files as a ‘publisher, organiser of exhibitions and conferences.’
Peter Heaton-Jones – North Devon [Conservative]
Tory Mr Heaton-Jones’ only declaration is that he owns a house in Wiltshire worth more than £100,000.
Sir Hugo Swire – East Devon [Conservative]
Sir Hugo has had several ministerial roles, most recently as Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Since 2016, the senior politician has earned thousands every month in prominent positions outside Parliament and holds shares yielding tens of thousands of pounds in a honey firm.
He employs his wife Alexandra (Sasha) Swire, as Senior Researcher/Parliamentary Assistant.
Sir Hugo’s outside appointments and earnings – in his own words
From 9 November 2016 until 1 June 2018, Adviser to KIS France, a manufacturer of photo booths and mini labs. Address: 7 Rue Jean Pierre Timbaud, 38130 Echirolles, France. I was paid £3,000 every month for this role.
Hours: 8 hrs per month. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment.
From 15 November 2016, Deputy Chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. Address: Marlborough House, Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HX. From 1 April 2018 I expect to be paid £2,083 every month until further notice. Hours: 10 hrs per month. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment.
16 November 2017, received £25,000 for acting as adviser to Apiro Real Estate Fund 1 Limited Partnership, 1 Connaught House, Mount Row, London SW1K 3RA. Hours: 10 hrs. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment.
From 18 June 2017 until 4 June 2018, non-executive director of ATG Airports, Newton Road, Lowton St Mary’s, Warrington WA3 2AP. From 5 February 2018, I was paid £2,500 every month for this role. Hours: approx. 4.5 hrs per month. Any additional payments are listed below. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment.
24 November 2017, received £10,086.72. Hours: 15 hrs.
From 19 March 2018 until further notice, Non-Executive Chairman of the British Honey Company, Unit 3 Vista Place, Coy Pond Business Park, Ingworth Road, Poole, Dorset, BH12 1JY. I will receive shares with a value of £50,000, in lieu of two years’ payment. Hours: expected to be about 5 hrs a month. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment.
Neil Parish – Tiverton and Honiton [Conservative]
Mr Parish declared he’d had all his expenses covered by the Conservative Friends of Israel to go on a ‘fact finding political delegation’ to Israel from April 8 to April 13 this year.
He wrote: “Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): (1) Air travel, accommodation and hospitality for myself with a value of £2,500, plus airport transfer and hospitality for my spouse with a value of £600, total £3,100 (2) For my spouse and myself, bus travel and airport VIP service with a total value of £1,300.”
Mr Parish owns a family farm in Somerset and employs his wife Susan Parish, as Junior Secretary.
Sheryll Murray – South East Cornwall [Conservative]
Mrs Murray revealed she’d secured a Tory party donation from Looe Conservative Ladies Luncheon Club amounting to £2,776.91 in 2017.
Torpoint and District Unionist Club also pledged £3,000 that year.
Mrs Murray also declared she went on an all-paid expenses trip to Armenia from 21 September to 24 September last year to attend a ‘Progressivism and Conservatism conference’.
“Airfare and accommodation for me and member of staff with a value of £2,800,” she wrote.
All costs were covered by the Prosperous Armenia Party.
Scott Mann – North Cornwall [Conservative]
Scott Mann attended the Progressivism and Conservatism conference in Armenia in September last year, expenses to the tune of £2,800 covered by Prosperous Armenia Party.
George Eustice – Camborne and Redruth [Conservative]
Mr Eustice declared that he owns a one-bed flat in London.
Sarah Newton – Truro & Falmouth [Conservative]
Sarah Newton had no financial affairs to declare.
Steve Double – St Austell and Newquay [Conservative]
In January, Winchester-based tyre firm Micheldever Tyre Service gave Mr Double two tickets to a football match and threw in hospitality and hotel accommodation in a package worth £600.
The MP is also getting paid £18,990 to act as a policy advisor for Good Faith Partnership LLP in a nine-month contract finishing in December this year.
He also joined Tories on a ‘fact-finding political delegation’ to Israel in April this year – with all his expenses being covered by Conservative Friends of Israel and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Mr Double’s affairs – in his words
Land and property portfolio: (i) value over £100,000 and/or (ii) giving rental income of over £10,000 a year
From 10 May 2018, a flat in St Austell, co-owned with my wife and inhabited by a family member
Shareholdings: over 15% of issued share capital
Bay Direct Media; a direct marketing company
Bay Mailing Services Ltd; a mailing house
Phoenix Corporate Gifts Ltd; a company selling branded merchandise
Family members employed and paid from parliamentary expenses
I employ my wife, Anne Double, as Principal Secretary.
Derek Thomas – St Ives [Conservative]
In 2017, the ex-property developer secured a £3,000 Tory party donation from Tresco island owner Robert Dorrien Smith.
Mr Thomas also secured £16,221 in sponsorship from Aventis Pharma Ltd for healthcare consultancy firm Incisive Health, to drive forward its Diabetes Think Tank initiative.
Since October last year, the MP has also jointly owned land, a house and a shop in West Cornwall with his wife.
Mr Thomas declared that since December 2015, he holds an interest ‘below registrable value’ in Mustard Seed Property Ltd, a community benefit society which provides housing in Cornwall for vulnerable people.”
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/mps-plymouth-salaries-benefits-parliament-2092453
“Universal Credit Charities ‘Banned From Criticising Esther McVey’ “
“Charities working with Universal Credit claimants have been “banned” from criticising Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey, the Times claims.
According to the newspaper, at least 22 organisations – covering contracts worth £1.8 billion – have been required to sign clauses pledging not to damage the reputation of Work and Pensions Secretary and to instead “pay the utmost regard to [her] standing and reputation”.
They must “not do anything which may attract adverse publicity” to her, damage her reputation, or harm the public’s confidence in her, the paper said.
Officials at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) denied they were “gagging clauses” intended to prevent criticism of ministers or their policies, insisting they were just “standard procedure”.
However a spokesperson confirmed that the contracts did include references to ensure both parties “understand how to interact with each other and protect their best interests”.
A DWP spokesperson said: “It’s completely untrue to suggest that organisations are banned from criticising Universal Credit.
“As with all arrangements like this, they include a reference which enables both parties to understand how to interact with each other and protect their best interests.
“This is in place to safeguard any commercial sensitive information for both government and the organisation involved.”
The news comes one day after HuffPost UK reported 580,000 benefits claimants could lose out on payments in the next phase of the Universal Credit rollout.
The figures led to urgent demands for the government to halt Universal Credit, which has been besieged by criticism from both the Labour Party and disability and welfare charities.
So far this week, Universal Credit has also been criticised by Iain Duncan Smith, who said the benefits reform needs an additional £2bn to operate as planned, and former prime minister Sir John Major.
“If you have people who face that degree of loss, that is not something the majority of the British population would think of as fair, and if people think you have removed yourself from fairness then you are in deep political trouble,” he said.”
“Judge who jailed fracking protesters with ‘excessive’ sentence has family links to oil and gas firm”
“A judge criticised for handing prison sentences to three fracking protesters has family links to the oil and gas industry.
Judge Robert Altham jailed Simon Blevins, 26, Richard Roberts, 36, and Richard Loizou, 31, over their demonstration at a Cuadrilla site.
The trio, known as the “Fracking Three”, are believed to be the first environmental activists to be imprisoned for public nuisance since 1932.
Critics have claimed the punishment was “manifestly excessive”. Now the Daily Mirror can reveal the Altham family business supplies the Irish Sea oil and gas industry.
J.C. Altham and Sons is believed to be part of the supply chain for energy giant Centrica, which has invested tens of millions of pounds in fracking.
Judge Altham’s sister, Jane Watson, put her name to an open letter in favour of fracking, which said, “It’s time to give shale a chance” and claimed it would create jobs.
The judicial code of conduct states a judge’s impartiality may be questioned if family members are “politically active” or have “financial interest” in the outcome of a case.
Lawyers for the protesters are trying to overturn their sentences. Loizou’s mum Sharron, 62, told the Mirror: “I was completely shocked when he was jailed, the sentence is incredibly harsh. We were expecting community service or a suspended sentence.
“It’s quite scary that in this country you can be jailed for a peaceful protest.” …
Soil scientist Blevins and piano restorer Roberts were given 16-month jail terms while teacher Loizou got 15 months last month.
Sentencing at Preston crown court, Judge Altham said: “Only immediate custody can achieve sufficient punishment.”
The judge’s parents John and Linda, 86 and 84, are directors of J.C. Altham & Sons.
His sister Jane, 54, is managing director of the firm, which supplies ships’ stores, including food, tools, rigging equipment and clothes. The firm’s website says it is a “specialist supplier to offshore gas and oil platforms”.
Three oil rigs in the East Irish Sea – near Altham’s base at Heysham, Lancs – belong to British Gas owner Centrica, which has ploughed tens of millions of pounds into fracking firm Cuadrilla.
In 2015 Jane’s name and that of her firm appeared on an open letter backed by 119 businesses.
It urged Lancashire County Council to permit fracking and create a “£33billion supply chain”.
The campaign was led by North West Energy Task Force, which allegedly received financial support from Cuadrilla and Centrica. The NWETF was later rebranded as lobbying group Lancashire For Shale.
LFS has praised Judge Altham’s decision saying: “Justice was served effectively.”
But more than 200 academics signed an open letter calling for a judicial review of the “absurdly harsh” sentence. About 200 supporters of the trio marched outside HMP Preston, where they are being held, at the weekend. The trio’s lawyers have approached the Court of Appeal and asked for an expedited hearing.
It means they could be freed within weeks if Judge Altham’s sentencing decision is ruled unsafe. Kirsty Brimelow QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, has taken their cases pro-bono. She said: “These men should not be in prison at all, the sentence is manifestly excessive.”
Judges are expected to tell defence and prosecution lawyers if they feel their impartiality in a case may be called into question.
A spokesman for the Judges’ Council said: “There are longstanding principles, set out in case law, which guide how judges approach possible conflicts of interest. They ensure that when hearing a case, a judge will be mindful of possible conflicts of interest and can draw relevant matters to the attention of parties in the case.”
Judge Altham did not wish to add anything to the Judges’ Council’s statement.
Sister Jane, a former police officer whose husband Stephen is the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, declined to comment today. …”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/judge-criticised-jailing-fracking-protesters-13396324
893 gifts or hospitality from developers in 6 years did not influence councillor’s decisions says Monitoring Officer [insert hollow laugh here]
On average accepted gifts or hospitality 3 times a week, every week for 6 years! But he resigned anyway ….. deja vu, deja vu says Owl!
“The Deputy Leader of Westminster Council has resigned following an internal investigation into his conduct.
Deputy Leader Robert Davis announced today he is to resign “with immediate effect” after 36 years of service.
Mr Davis’s resignation comes after he reportedly accepted hospitality or gifts 893 times over six years. These gifts frequently came from property developers who were seeking planning permission, according to the Guardian.
In a statement, Mr Davis said: “I am very proud of my 36 years’ service in local government during which I made a major contribution to the wellbeing of the City and its people.
“Earlier this year there was some press coverage concerning the hospitality I received during the course of my duties. To avoid this becoming an issue in this year’s elections, I agreed to refer myself to the Monitoring Officer, and stand aside as Deputy Leader while an investigation was carried out.”
Mr Davis, who chaired the Conservative borough’s planning committee for 17 years, continued: “My approach to declarations has always been to be honest, open and transparent. I have nothing to hide.
“I registered all my hospitality and it was posted by officers on the Council’s website. I have been making such declarations since 2007 when the requirement was first introduced.
“I also declared any relevant interests at the beginning of every planning committee I chaired during this time. I have acted with the utmost transparency and probity at all times and have only ever taken decisions on the basis of what I thought was best for Westminster.
“An inquiry has been completed by the Council. They have confirmed that none of the declarations I made or hospitality I received influenced decisions I took as a councillor and that nothing I did was unlawful.”
He said his actions “created a perception that was negative to the Council.
“While I dispute this, I wish to draw a line under the matter. It is now time for me to move on to the next stage in my life, and for the next generation of councillors to lead Westminster.”
Ministers must give reasons for calling-in and also for NOT calling-in planning applications
Big change from recent practice and a victory for SAVE.
“Ministers must follow published government policy and give reasons for call-in decisions on planning applications – including in those cases where the decision is not to call in, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
The case of Save Britain’s Heritage, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 2137 concerned the Secretary of State’s decision, dated 15 March 2017, not to “call in” certain planning applications dealing with the controversial ‘Paddington Cube’ development.
SAVE argued that the Secretary of State was required in law to give reasons for that decision, and failed to do so. It put the case in two ways:
There was a legitimate expectation that reasons would be provided, based on a promise made in 2001 by the then Attorney General Lord Falconer. Although the Secretary of State accepted that it was the practice for many years to give reasons for not calling in an application (pursuant to s.77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), the Secretary of State argued that this practice came to an end in 2014 and that SAVE knew or ought to have known about that change. SAVE maintained that, as a matter of principle, a published policy cannot be withdrawn or overturned by an unpublished practice.
The Secretary of State had a general duty at common law to give reasons for any decision under s.77 and/or that there was such a duty on the particular facts of this case. This argument was contrary to a number of first instance decisions and was advanced principally by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dover District Council v CPRE Kent [2017] UKSC 79.
When granting SAVE permission to appeal, Lord Justice Lewison limited that appeal to SAVE’s claim for a declaration “that the SoS was required to give reasons for any decision whether or not to call in applications for planning permission and/or listed building consent for his own determination under s.77”. The planning permission granted by Westminster City Council on 14 August 2017 still stands.
The Court of Appeal ruled in SAVE’s favour. Lord Justice Coulson considered that the particular facts of this case did not require the common law to impose a duty to give reasons when none would otherwise exist.
In relation to the legitimate expectation issue, Mrs Justice Lang had concluded in the High Court that by 2016/2017, there was no longer an established practice that reasons would be given for a decision not to call-in an application. “On the contrary, the established practice was that reasons would not be given.”
Lord Justice Coulson decided that this conclusion was erroneous for three reasons:
The judge’s may appeared to confuse the promise cases with the practice cases. “I accept that, if a legitimate expectation was created as a result of a particular practice then, if that practice was changed, the legitimate expectation might well disappear with it. But that is not this case. This case is based on the unequivocal promise made by the relevant Minister in Parliament which has never been publicly changed.”
It was “a recipe for administrative chaos if a legitimate expectation can be generated by an unequivocal ministerial promise, only for it then to be lost as a result of an unadvertised change of practice.” Even at its highest, the Secretary of State’s case stopped short of the suggestion that the alleged change of practice was advertised as such when it occurred in 2014. Ms Lieven QC [counsel for the minister] properly accepted that it was not a change that could be said to have been ‘published’ at all.”
It was “worth noting how and why the SoS says that this change of practice occurred. It appears that, in the Westminster case, the Minister had given reasons for not calling in the decision which were plainly wrong on their face. As a result of this error, somebody (and it is quite unclear who) within the Department for Communities and Local Government decided that it would be more prudent for reasons not to be given under s.77. In consequence, changes were made to the template letter sent out (to the relevant LPAs, or to the objectors who had requested call in) when a decision was made not to call in an application under s.77. Mr Harwood QC [counsel for SAVE] was therefore right to say that this was not an open or transparent way to withdraw a public ministerial promise made in Parliament.”
The Court of Appeal judge said he was unpersuaded that the alleged change to the template letter was of any real significance.
Lord Justice Coulson continued: “Since a promise had been made to operate a particular procedure then, as a matter of good administration and transparent governance, any change to that policy also had to be announced publicly.
“It is a not a question of fettering the future exercise of discretion, but simply making public the decision that something which had been promised and provided in the past would not be provided in the future. In my view, good administration and transparent government required nothing less. Of course, this did not happen here because no-one in the Department knew that they were changing a promised policy (because they had forgotten about it).”
Lord Justice Coulson added: “I do not accept the proposition that a policy which has been promised can then be withdrawn simply by a change in the template of letters sent privately to individual LPAs and objectors, particularly where, as here, the alleged change is itself very difficult to discern.”
He said: “An unequivocal promise was made, and that unequivocal promise should have been publicly withdrawn when (or if) a conscious decision was taken no longer to give reasons for not calling in applications …. For these reasons, I consider that SAVE’s legitimate expectation case has been made out.”
SAVE said the ruling meant that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government must now follow his own published advice and give reasons for his decisions.
Henrietta Billings, director of SAVE Britain’s Heritage, said: “This is a fantastic result that opens up the decision making process for highly contested major schemes across the country. It literally changes the landscape of decision making – and is a major victory for openness and transparency.”
Source: Local Government Lawyer
“Secretive councils shut out reporters with ‘elaborate ruse’ ” [one our council is fond of]
And EDDC with its “working groups” (eg Knowle sale and relocation, regeneration groups, the notorious East Devon Business forum, etc). Here is a list of its “other panels and forums” most of which meet behind closed doors with no public minutes:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/other-panels-and-forums/
“Councils across the country are trying to evade scrutiny by restricting media access to meetings.
One authority has ordered that sensitive information be shared only on an overhead screen to prevent leaks, while Nottinghamshire county council used an “elaborate” ruse to bar journalists from a crucial meeting to discuss plans to dissolve district and borough councils and create a new super-council.
Rather than debate the proposals in public, the council established a “working group” to discuss the plans behind closed doors. The council’s constitution requires committee meetings to be accessible to the press, but working groups operate outside the transparency rules.
“It’s a political sleight of hand,” Mike Sassi, editor of the Nottingham Post, said. “They are behaving in a high-handed fashion, which just reinforces every reservation people have about modern-day politicians. It was an elaborate, detailed and thought-out attempt to circumvent transparency.”
The council’s secrecy drive failed after the working group’s discussion documents and minutes were leaked to Kit Sandeman, a reporter for the Post and the BBC. The Post has complained to the local government ombudsman.
Lucy Ashton, a reporter for the BBC, The Star and Sheffield Telegraph, was challenged at a consultation at a pub to canvass residents’ views on a redevelopment. Two city council officers were “very unhappy”, she said.
“The director said, ‘We weren’t aware you were coming. Have you informed the press office?’ I said ‘No, I don’t need to, it’s a public meeting.’ ” Ms Ashton said that it was the first time in 25 years of reporting that she had faced such hostility at a council meeting. She said: “Nowadays everything needs to go through the press office. A few years ago I would have rung a planning officer directly. All that’s gone now.” The council press office apologised to Ms Ashton and pledged to ensure that reporters felt welcome at future events.
Nottinghamshire council said that the reorganisation had already been debated three times at public meetings and that the working group had no decision-making powers. Kay Cutts, council leader, said: “There was no requirement on the council to set up a working group — it was set up solely in the interests of transparency. The working group is intended as a way of engaging members from all political groups on progress of the work.”
South Ayrshire council in Scotland has sent members on mandatory confidentiality training and restricted sending out written reports to prevent leaks.
Instead, documents containing confidential information will only be displayed on an overhead screen during council meetings. The measures were required to protect commercially sensitive and personal information, the council said.
Rules for open government:
• Journalists are allowed to report from all council meetings and given “reasonable facilities”. Guidelines state: “Councils should support freedom of the press within the law and not seek to restrict those who may write critical comments.”
• Councils must give at least five days’ notice of their meetings and publish an agenda in advance.
• Press and public can be excluded if the council decides that confidential or “exempt” information is likely to be disclosed. Members of the public can be expelled to maintain orderly conduct.
• Councils can get round the transparency rules by classifying specific meetings as “working groups”, rather than committees.
Source:The Times (pay wall)
“NHS meeting deemed ‘too political’ for South Devon and Torbay CCG”
From last month:
“If you’re one of those poor saps who just wants the NHS to keep on running and stay away from privatisation, you may be surprised to hear that this is all just a little bit too ‘political’ for the South Devon and Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group.
Commissioning Groups are ‘clinically-led statutory NHS bodies responsible for the planning and commissioning of health care services for their local area’. They were set up by the Tories in cahoots with the Lib Dems, reneging on the promise of no reorganising of the NHS.
Meanwhile, Devon is seeing hospitals close, bed disappear and services stretched. (There may well be something like a Hospital-Air-B&B type of arrangment in the offing, too.)
The Torbay and South Devon Trades Council have arranged a meeting at The Acorn Centre on August 23rd from 6.30pm to 830pm on ‘NHS Health and Social Care Can it Survive as a Public Service’.
NHS… not for health professionals
After seeing the five-point agenda (see below, 1 is an introduction, 4 and 5 are questions) the Clinical Commissioning Group for Torbay and South Devon decided that the topics are for politicians and not for health professionals.
This is despite them being ‘clinically-led statutory NHS bodies responsible for the planning and commissioning of health care services for their local area’.
Hey ho.”
http://www.theprsd.co.uk/2018/08/14/nhs-meeting-deemed-too-political-for-south-devon-and-torbay-ccg/
Owl says: not to worry, it is too political for the DCC Health and Wellbeing Committee too, which rushes all CCG changes through at super-fast speed and on the nod from majority Tory block-voting councillors- too much politics obviously beeing too much for their (and our) pretty little heads.
Despite Independent Councillor Claire Wright and EDA Independent Councillor Martin Shaw really, really wanting a political (and ethical) debate.
Cranbrook (and elsewhere) – do you want independent councillors at East Devon District Council?
For the first time next year in May 2019 , Cranbrook will be electing three district councillors to serve on East Devon District council. This happens only once every four years.
Elected councillors serve on committees such as planning, housing and scrutiny.
Councillors are paid for their time (from at least £4360 per year plus expenses):
Click to access members-allowances-2017-18.pdf
You may feel that you have a natural affinity for the ruling block on the council – Conservatives or the other party represented at EDDC, Lib Dems. Conservatives currently hold 36 of the 58 seats, Lib Dems hold 6 seats.
But what if you feel that party politics (following the orders of your national party at such a local level) is not for you?
The next biggest group after Conservatives is independent councillors. They currently hold 16 seats. There is also an Independent East Devon Alliance councillor (Martin Shaw – Seaton and Colyton) at Devon County Council but their elections do not take place until 2022.
Some Independent councillors at East Devon (10 of them) belong to the East Devon Alliance.
How come independent councillors can be in an alliance?
Well, on all matters EDA are always totally independent and free to vote however they wish – there is no Whip as there is for a political party (though, by an anomaly of the electoral system, EDA has no alternative but to register as a political party for elections because the electoral system has not moved with the times!).
EDA councillors do though share common values – a committment to accountability, scrutiny and transparency in all council business and fight hard for these values for which they find it useful to be a group supportive of each other, while maintaining their independence. They also help each other in practical ways – canvassing, leaflet distribution, advice, etc.
If you think you would like to be a councillor, check out:
https://www.gov.uk/government/get-involved/take-part/become-a-councillor
If, after reading it, you like the idea of being an Independent East Devon Alliance councillor, contact the group at:
http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/admin/contact-us/
or visit their Facebook page.
(East Devon Watch is supportive of East Devon Alliance but independent in its own views)
What happens if most English local authorities fail due to inadequate funding?
Owl has a theory.
Their money (but with fewer responsibilities and much less scrutiny) will immediately be passed to Local Enterprise Partnerships!
Unelected, unaccountable, barely scrutinised they will be free to use our money however they wish. And responsible only to government.
A score of unelected business people of dubious quality, dubious expertise and with complex conflicts of interest get full power.
What could possibly go wrong?
A personal view of scrutiny
From Peter Cleasby, a member of the Green Party, who lives in Exeter.
The Centre for Public Scrutiny has been tasked by the government with contributing to the new statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny in local government [1]. Below are my own suggestions, drawing on experience with monitoring Exeter City Council, which I have sent to the CfPS and the government.
1. There should be a requirement that scrutiny committees are constituted so as to be able to challenge ruling group proposals effectively. Exeter City Council changed its rules a few years ago to require that the chairs of scrutiny committees would be drawn from the majority party only (previously the chairs could be taken by members of opposition parties). This reduces the independence of the committees and, for obvious party political reasons, reduces criticism of leadership group proposals.
2. There should be more opportunities for members of the public to ask questions and challenge councillors at meetings. Other Devon councils allow questions to be asked at meetings of their executives/cabinets, but Exeter limits this practice to its scrutiny committees. Although the questioner is allowed to speak at the end of any discussion following the question and answer, no opportunity is provided to ask a supplementary question. This reduces the effectiveness of the challenge and the quality of discussion, and a requirement for one supplementary question would be valuable.
3. Scrutiny committees should be required to engage independent specialists to help them understand and challenge leadership proposals which have a high technical content, for example: on air quality, waste collection and disposal, estimation of housing need. This would enable officer-led proposals, often informed by consultancy studies predicated on terms of reference and assumptions issued by those officers, to be debated on a level playing field of knowledge.
4. Officers should be required to inform scrutiny committees of any representations received from organisations and individuals, whether solicited or not, relevant to an item being discussed by a scrutiny committee.
5. It should be mandatory for all proposals which would incur unbudgeted expenditure in excess of (say) £50k should be discussed at a scrutiny committee; and the proposal should state explicitly where the funding for the proposal will come from, including the impact on existing specific budgets.
6. In the interests of measuring the extent to which members of the public are having to resort to FOI Act/EIR channels to obtain information, the number, nature and outcome of all such requests such be reported publicly to each scrutiny committee cycle.
Some of these requirements will have – modest – costs at a time when local authorities are under severe financial constraints. In the interests of restoring the health of our democratic arrangements, the government should be prepared to make available additional funding to support them.
NOTES:
[1] See https://www.cfps.org.uk/3323-2/
Another investigation of local authority scrutiny and accountability
Owl says: The time is coming for fewer reports and more action. As an example, council CEOs should be forced to attend such committees in public to answer for their more controversial and questionable behaviour.
“The National Audit Office is to conduct a study of local government governance and accountability that will “examine key elements of local arrangements in the light of current pressures”.
The watchdog will also examine how the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for maintaining the overall accountability system for local government, is exercising its responsibilities as the steward of the system.
The NAO said: “Council governance and accountability arrangements are key in securing value for money locally. However, these arrangements are being tested by the current financial circumstances in the sector. Increasingly difficult decisions need to be made to protect key services and ensure financial sustainability. This includes the design and delivery of large service transformation programmes and the pursuit of new sources of revenue income through commercial investments.
“Local governance and accountability arrangements provide assurance about decision making processes and support the mitigation of risk in this increasingly challenging and complex environment.”
The NAO report is expected to be published in early 2019.
A report from the Committee for Standards in Public Life on local government ethical standards is due to come out later this year.”
Local Enterprise Partnership – Partnership: Arise Wessex! Or maybe not …!
Below is a comment on an earlier post:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/09/16/greater-south-west-local-enterprise-partnership-partnership/
reprinted here as it raises some interesting questions, raised by David Daniel, who so eloquently spoke about the unrealistic expectations of our LEPs growth strategy to a largely uninformed and disinterested majority of Conservative councillors at DCC recently:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/11/30/watch-eda-councillor-shaw-and-budleigh-resident-david-daniel-make-most-sense-on-lep-strategy/
This now seems to be the THIRD such trial marriage of various south-west LEPs. None of them seem to be made in heaven ……….
“WESSEX here we come!
English devolution is a mess, whether it will evolve into anything sensible is uncertain.
A third of people living in England outside London live in one of England’s nine combined authorities, six being cities with directly elected mayors. These are corporate bodies formed of two or more local government areas to enable decision-making across boundaries on issues that extend beyond the interests of any one individual local authority, like strategic transport planning.
Our nearest is the West of England Combined Authority of: Bristol; North Somerset; Bath and North East Somerset; and South Gloucester. The Government has encouraged the creation of these structures in order to provide the economic scale needed for devolution. These are on the fast track.
County identities are medieval in origin but they continue to lurk in our consciences. We identify with them democratically and historically. The focus of the Coalition 2010 white paper that set devolution in progress was to create administrations based on economic functional areas rather than regions. This has set in train a conflict between perceived economic necessity and community identity and democracy. A few Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) followed county boundaries eg Cornwall and Scilly, and Dorset, but most did not. Some even overlapped.
Following on from the combined authorities, which are all centred on what one might describe as metropolitan areas, we are beginning to see the creation of new concepts by the combination of LEPs into “power” groupings such as the Council of the North, Midlands Engine, Oxbridge Corridor etc.
We now have the Great South West Partnership of: Heart of the South West (HotSW), Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, and Dorset LEPs. Or do we? The reason I add a question mark is because not very long ago (April to be exact) we had the Great South West Partnership comprising FOUR LEPs, including Swindon and Wiltshire “working together” to agree the next steps in implementing the recommendations of a report on Productivity. We were also told that GFirst (Gloucester) and West of England (Bristol) LEPs were also taking an active interest.
In his first interview on Somerset Live the new HotSW Chief Executive, David Ralph said “We’ve set a really big ambition about doubling the size of the economy in this area over the next 30 years.”
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/everything-you-need-know-local-1872023
Previously the target had been to double the economy in 20 years. When I asked for clarification I was told it was a mis-speak, not a change of policy to something slightly more realistic.
So who knows where we are going?”
Greater South West Local Enterprise Partnership – partnership!
Another GREAT to add to GREATER EXETER – the GREAT South West Partnership!
For this one, Dorset now holds the purse strings (thanks to Oliver Letwin?) but developer Steve Hindley still holds on to the Chairmanship. Somerset County Council seems to have lost its financial control role – hardly surprising now it’s in a financial crisis.
And all still unelected, unaccountable and non-transparent.
Rather confusingly, in one part of the press release there is a reference to high productivity in this new LEP region but then it goes on to say: “When productivity in the South West matches current levels in the South East, the region will add more than £18 billion a year to the UK economy.” Do they really expect it to overtake the south-east? They could just as well have said “when productivity in the region the region overtakes China it will add £18 trillion to the UK economy”!
“Press release from Heart of the South West, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, and Dorset Local Enterprise Partnerships:
A campaign to highlight the South West’s economic potential and make the case for Government investment on a par with other UK regions has been launched at Westminster.
An alliance of business leaders, local authorities and higher education chiefs formally launched its Great South West vision that aims to put the South West on the UK economic map, to Parliament.
The delegation of the Heart of the South West, Dorset and Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly LEPs (Local Enterprise Partnerships) were in London to promote the South West’s economic development ambitions.
They are calling on the government to give their vision for growth the same high-profile backing as other initiatives like the Northern Powerhouse and the Midlands Engine.
Great South West Partnership Chair & Chair of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, Steve Hindley CBE DL said: “The Great South West already has an economy twice the size of Greater Manchester’s and the West Midlands’. We have the largest building project in Europe underway at Hinkley Point C, as well as unrivalled natural assets that attract more visitors than anywhere outside London.
“This partnership stands out from the other UK public-led economic partnerships, as ours heavily backed by the business and university sector, and by working together we have the benefit of scale that gives us the chance to really show what we can do, given the right backing from Government.
“We’re now on the verge transformational growth in productivity, and we’re looking forward to realising our full potential and increasing our contribution to the UK economy on the back of increasing the prosperity of our local communities and businesses.”
Mark Duddridge, Chair of the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly LEP, said: “The government’s recent review of LEPs acknowledged their vital role in developing ambitious strategies for growth and driving investment and job creation.
“The Great South West is about cross-LEP collaboration on a shared agenda, such as transport and infrastructure that can deliver real growth in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly as well as the wider South West.”
Dorset LEP Chair, Jim Stewart, said: “The South West economy is nationally significant and is larger than any combined authority – double the size of both Greater Manchester and West Midlands.
“Yet we are not receiving the same financial investment from the government as these regions.
“Our Great South West alliance of regional business leaders, academic heads and local authorities is determined to win backing for our plans that will put the region on the economic map.”
In July a government review of LEPs said the partnerships played a crucial role in ‘supercharging’ economic growth and the delivery of its Industrial Strategy.
Representatives from the three LEPs met with South West’s MPs at a meeting in Westminster to launch Great South West.
The MPs received a presentation, which set out the economic significance of the region.
In addition to having double the size economy of Greater Manchester and West Midlands, Great South West also contributes more to UK Gross Value Added than both Thames Gateway and Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor.
It also has a bigger productivity than both the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine but lags behind the English average.
When productivity in the South West matches current levels in the South East, the region will add more than £18 billion a year to the UK economy.
In addition, the South West is home to the single largest infrastructure project in Europe – the new Hinkley Point nuclear power plant in Somerset, which will generate billions of pounds worth of new business opportunities.
Tourism is a huge industry, with the region attracting more visitors than anywhere outside London.
And the region is also home to the largest aerospace sector in the UK, with pioneering automotive, nuclear and marine renewables and microelectronics industries. It also has a growing creative and digital sector.
Dorset West MP Sir Oliver Letwin worked with the LEPs on arranging the meeting with members of Parliament. He said: “This meeting provided a great opportunity for south west MPs to be properly briefed about this exciting proposition, which could grow to deliver a significant step-change in productivity for the south west.
“It is highly encouraging to see the diversity and number of stakeholders, even at this early stage – with Local Enterprise Partnerships, local authorities, universities, the CBI, Chambers of Commerce and many others all involved in the Great South West project.
“I hope that this project can continue to move forward with ever increasing momentum, and to help further realise the extraordinary economic potential of the South West.”
The Great South West partnership faces a number of challenges, including transport and connectivity, large dispersed populations and some of the country’s most deprived areas. This results in low productivity.
To tackle these challenges Great South West is calling the government to support it to improve transport connectivity and strategic routes, drive productivity in trade and build supply chains and increase economic connectivity in the rural sector.
A letter has been sent to James Brokenshire MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to seek formal government support and investment for Great South West.”
https://heartofswlep.co.uk/news/great-south-west-set-rival-northern-powerhouse-midlands-engine/
“Standards watchdog head Sir Kevin Barron resigns over cover-up fears” – there really one law for MPs and one for the rest of us …
Owl says: what did you expect from this government?
“The head of the Commons standards watchdog has resigned and accused parliament of “sacrificing transparency” by banning the identification of MPs who are under investigation.
Sir Kevin Barron announced yesterday that he would step down next month after eight years of chairing the standards and privileges committee. “I am proud of the changes made to the code of conduct over the years, including the recent introduction of a new system of investigation into bullying and sexual harassment,” he said. But he took a swipe at his fellow MPs, adding: “It is a shame that some of those changes had to come with the sacrifice of transparency.”
In July members voted in favour of plans to keep secret the details of all MPs under investigation. The change was part of reforms being pushed through in response to reports of sexual harassment and bullying at Westminster.
Sir Kevin fiercely opposed the motion, describing it at the time as a “step backwards in transparency”. Lay members of the committee said that the move was “a detrimental step in continuing to build the credibility of the reputation of the House”. Less than two hours after the vote passed, the parliamentary standards commissioner had removed the list of current inquiries from its website.
Since 2010 details of MPs under inquiry, as well as rulings, have automatically been published. The new rules mean that the commissioner will no longer automatically publish verdicts.
Sir Kevin said: “I feel that now is an ideal time for me to move on and focus on other projects.” He commended the work of the lay members of the committee.
Jeremy Corbyn was reported to the standards commissioner last month for allegedly failing to declare his contentious trip to Tunisia or reveal who paid for it. If the commissioner were to rule that he broke Commons rules on declaring an overseas trip, he would have to apologise to MPs. Under the new system, however, the public would not automatically know of the details of the investigation. A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn has said: “The cost of the trip did not meet the declaration threshold.”
Source: The Times (paywall)
“Grant Thornton [EDDC’s past and present auditor] in record fine as auditing scandal spreads”
“The scandal around City auditors spread beyond the big four on Wednesday as Grant Thornton was slapped with a major fine for serious conflicts of interest with two audit clients.
The Financial Reporting Council fined the professional services firm £4 million, reduced to £3 million after a settlement discount. Three senior staffers and a former partner had admitted misconduct in the handling of financial audits for Vimto drinks-maker Nichols and the University of Salford.
The ex-partner, Eric Healey, was slammed for “reckless” behaviour after taking jobs on the audit committees of Nichols and the university despite continuing to work as a consultant to Grant Thornton after retirement. The accountancy firm continued as auditor to both, creating “serious familiarity and self-interest threats”.
The FRC delivered the damning verdicts five years after it opened the probes, which cover 2010 to 2013.
The £4 million penalty is the largest imposed on an accountancy firm outside of the big four — PwC, KPMG, Deloitte and EY. The costs will come out of partner profits.
It is the latest in a series of reprimands for Britain’s biggest auditing firms — just last week KPMG was fined £3 million for its audits of Ted Baker — as the FRC faces calls to reduce the big four’s dominance.
Healey’s simultaneous engagement with Grant Thornton, Nichols and the University of Salford “resulted in the loss of independence in respect of eight audits over the course of four years,” said the FRC.
It added: “The case also revealed widespread and serious inadequacies in the control environment in Grant Thornton’s Manchester office over the period as well as firm-wide deficiencies in policies and procedures relating to retiring partners.”
Healey, who retired from Grant Thornton in 2009, joined the audit committees of the University of Salford and AIM-listed Nichols in 2010 and 2011 respectively. The former role was unpaid and he got £22,000 per year for the latter.
The FRC said it has issued a £200,000 fine (discounted for settlement to £150,000) to Healey and excluded him from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for five years.
Three senior statutory auditors at Grant Thornton, Kevin Engel, David Barnes, and Joanne Kearns, were reprimanded and fined £75,000, £52,500 and £45,000 respectively (after discount for settlements).
Grant Thornton said: “Whilst the focus of the investigation was not on our technical competence in carrying out either of these audit assignments, the matter of ethical conduct and independence is equally of critical importance in ensuring the quality of our work and it is regrettable that we fell short of the standards expected of us on this occasion. As we have since made significant investments in our people and processes and remain committed to continuous improvement in this regard, we are confident that such a situation should not arise in the future.”
Source: Evening Standard
The bigger the decision, the less we are consulted
Guardian letter:
“George Monbiot’s article about the proposed Oxford-Cambridge expressway exposes how grand schemes are conceived and presented for “consultation” when only the trivial issues remain (These projects shape our lives. But we have no say in them, Journal, 22 August).
My work takes me to parts of the world often criticised for being undemocratic, where plans worked out behind closed doors and backed by powerful interest groups are indeed presented for “consultation”. This fait accompli approach fails to give people a real say, however, and gives a veneer of democratic accountability to projects with negative social and environmental impacts. Western governments express concern over how local rights are ignored in such places, but this is also happening here.
To expressways and HS2s, add hundreds of smaller decisions imposed on people against their wishes. In my town, in spite of 100% local opposition, a successful secondary school was closed, with serious consequences for local demographics and economic life. Local voices in the UK are powerless against a system that is essentially authoritarian, blind to community issues and needs, and light years away from asking if the relentless pursuit of growth really is the solution to all our problems. As in many countries where democracy is cosmetic, our leaders resort to “national interest” or “we know best” arguments, while pandering to corporate interests or driven blindly by political targets.
The Oxford-Cambridge expressway is an example of a much deeper malaise at the heart of our democracy, where people have little say over what really affects their lives.
Christopher Tanner
Llandovery, Carmarthenshire”
“The bigger the question, the less we are asked”
Owl says: he is behind the times – just about everything that we pay for is now decided “behind closed doors”. Examples: Local Enterprise Partnership, Greater Exeter Planning Strategy, local Clinical Commissioning Group. All our money and all decided in secret.
“… A striking example is the government’s plan for an Oxford-to-Cambridge expressway. A decision to which we have not been party, which will irrevocably change the region it affects, is imminent. The new road, says the plan, will support the construction of a million homes.
To give you some sense of the scale of this scheme, consider that Oxfordshire will have to provide 300,000 of them. It currently contains 280,000 homes. In 30 years, if this scheme goes ahead, the county must build as many new houses, and the infrastructure, public services and businesses required to support them, as have been built in the past 1,000. A million new homes amounts, in effect, to an Oxford-Cambridge conurbation.
But none of this is up for debate. By the time we are asked for our opinion, there will be little left to discuss but the colour of the road signs. The questions that count, such as whether the new infrastructure should be built, or even where it should be built, will have been made without us.
The justification for this scheme is not transport or housing as an end in itself. Its objective, according to the National Infrastructure Commission, is to enable the region “to maximise its economic potential”. Without this scheme, the commission insists, Oxford and Cambridge and the region between them “will be left behind, damaging the UK’s global competitiveness”.
This reasoning, you might hope, would prompt some major questions. Is continued growth, in one of the wealthiest regions of the world, desirable? If it is desirable, does it outweigh the acceleration of climate breakdown the scheme will cause? When air pollution already exceeds legal limits, are new roads and their associated infrastructure either appropriate or safe? And are we really engaged in a race with other nations, in which being “left behind” is something to be feared?
But these questions are not just closed to debate. They are not even recognised as questions. The megalomaniacs with their pencils, the rulers with their rulers, assume that their unexamined premises are shared by everyone. …
By imposing this decision, the government ignores its legal obligations. It has failed to conduct a strategic environmental assessment before the corridor decision is made, as the law insists. Under the Aarhus convention, public participation must begin while “all options are open”. But neither people nor law can be allowed to disrupt a grand design.
This is not democracy. This is not even a semblance of democracy. Yet the consequences of such decisions will be greater than almost any others that are made, because they are irreversible. The bigger the question, the less we are asked.”
“DUP fined £1,000 over ‘inaccurate’ loan reporting”
Owl says: remarkable how this article gives no details of EXACTLY what the DUP did wrong, how much money was involved and borrowed from whom, for how long and at what rate of interest! Transparency my …..!
“THE DUP has been fined £1,000 by the Electoral Commission for “inaccurate” loan reporting.
The watchdog imposed two fines worth £500 each, which were paid earlier this month, its latest report disclosed.
In a statement it said: “The Commission considered, in accordance with the enforcement policy, that sanctions were appropriate in this case.”
Ann Watt, head of the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland, added: “The reporting requirements are clear, so it is always disappointing when parties fail to comply.
“It’s vital that voters are given an opportunity to see accurate and full reportable data on what parties spend money on in order to influence them at elections and referendums.
“This provides transparency in the political finance system and is open for anyone to scrutinise.
“The Commission will continue to enforce these requirements on all parties and campaigners to ensure voters have the information they need.”
The Traditional Unionist Voice was also fined £1,000 for late delivery of a spending return for last year’s general election. The fine was due to be paid earlier this month.”
East Devon Watch 