Bankrupt Northamptonshire Country Council: more sleazy payments uncovered

“Councillors spent public money on a hospitality box and hiring a plane as the authority headed towards financial crisis, an investigation has found.
Payments were made by a company owned by Northamptonshire County Council whose directors were councillors.

NEA Properties, which bought the box at Premiership rugby side Northampton Saints, was dissolved a month before the council banned spending.

The BBC has contacted the councillors concerned for a response.

An independent audit report found that NEA Properties’ “expenditure incurred was consistent with the authority and purpose of the company and its directors”.

The company was incorporated in 1983 under the name Northamptonshire Enterprise Agency to promote the county and managed a number of units at the University of Northampton campus.

Conservative councillors Bill Parker and Andre Gonzales De Savage had served as directors in the company since 2010 and 2007 respectively.

It sold its properties in September 2014 and £700,000 was transferred back to the council, but £180,000 was spent on other items.

More than £4,000 was used on a B17 vintage aircraft and first aiders for a memorial event at Grafton Underwood in May 2015.

NEA Properties also spent £2,700 on a heritage dinner with string quartet.
The report also revealed the company spent more than £250 on “cheese, biscuits, etc” for a stately home event.

Concerns about finances at the council – which has been issued with two Section 114 notices, banning new spending – were made as early as 2013, according to former leader Heather Smith.

Worries over NEA Properties were first raised by a whistleblower, former UKIP councillor Michael Brown, in January 2017.

An audit was then commissioned and found the payments were made with “minimal” governance and documentation.

It found no evidence of improper spending or management by the company “but in the absence of various records only limited assurance can be provided”.

The audit was also told £80,000 spent on Northampton Saints went on the redevelopment of a new stand at the Franklin’s Gardens ground, but the club denied this was what was purchased.

A club spokesman said it could “confirm the county council had a box as part of a marketing package which they purchased”.

Financial adviser Mr Brown said the lack of a detailed audit trail was a “unbelievable in this day and age”.

He added: “As a public organisation they were keeping secret the accounts of a limited company it owns under the small companies exception. “This should not happen as it leaves itself open to abuse of public funds.”

A spokesman for the council said the report found that although limited assurances were provided about the company, “the organisational impact was minor”.

He added: “The report also found that expenditure and financial transactions were transparent.

“However, the committee did draw up a number of recommendations and work on addressing these will be done as soon as possible.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-45211357

New York Times: “As Austerity Helps Bankrupt an English County, Even Conservatives Mutiny”

This us from the New york Times and published in the United States: it is the best assessment of the effect of austerity on the UK that Owl has ever read and contains deep-level information not seen anywhere else. It was written by NTT journalist Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura – “a correspondent based in London, where she covers an eclectic beat ranging from politics to social issues spanning Europe, the Middle East and Africa”.

“NORTHAMPTON, England — It was a seething, stomping protest in this ordinarily genteel medieval town: Throngs of residents, whistling and booing, swarmed the county hall. “Criminals!” they shouted. They held up banners that read: “Tory councilors wanted for crimes against people in Northamptonshire.”

The crime?

The bankruptcy of their Conservative-led local government, which has a budget deficit so big that councilors are stripping away all but the minimum services required by law. Inside the county hall, the besieged council debated the latest round of cuts — it had already voted to close libraries and stop repairing roads — as disgusted residents jeered.

“Your guilt should keep you awake at night,” Patrick Markey said at the meeting earlier this month, his voice trembling with rage. “It’s criminal incompetence and criminal politics.”

Usually, local government finance is a dull affair. But Northamptonshire has become a warning sign of the perilous state of Britain’s local governments. A Conservative Party bastion, Northamptonshire is leafy and affluent, littered with aristocratic estates — yet in February its local authority became the first in two decades to effectively run out of money.

Britain is already in upheaval over Brexit, its looming withdrawal from the European Union, with many experts warning of economic hardship ahead. But Northamptonshire is foreshadowing another potential fiscal crisis: Local governments drained of resources, cutting services to the bone.

Councils are Britain’s fundamental unit of local government, dealing with an array of basic needs: trash collection, public transport, libraries, town planning, and care for children and other vulnerable people, among other things. They levy a tax on homes and charge fees for some services. They also collect a nationally set tax on commercial real estate, and keep an increasing share of it. But for years they received most of their funding from the central government.

The crisis in Northamptonshire is complicated and partly self-inflicted. But it has roots in the austerity policies and cost cutting that the Conservative-led national government imposed a decade ago in response to the global financial crisis. The Tories in London argued that austerity was the responsible solution to balance public accounts and encourage future growth.

Now some Conservatives, especially at the local level, are openly defying what has been a pillar of the party’s ideology.

Funding from London for local governments has fallen 60 percent since 2010, with reductions expected to total $21 billion by 2020, the Local Government Association has calculated. In response, nearly every council in Britain has cut or outsourced services, sold off assets and tried a host of budget gimmicks, experts in local finance say.

One in 10 of the larger councils that have obligations to care for children and elderly people — about 35 councils in all — are in danger of exhausting their reserves within the next three years, according to the National Audit Office.

“There’s a slow-moving domino effect,” said Rob Whiteman, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Northamptonshire was the first flashing red light. East Sussex County Council, run by Conservatives, recently announced it would reduce services to the “legal minimum.” The Conservative-led county council in Somerset warned it might be facing bankruptcy. This month, two families won a case against Bristol City Council to block plans to reduce funding of special education needs and disability services.

The Northamptonshire council, having run through its rainy-day funds, now has enough money to pay only for mandatory services for the elderly and children. Unable by law to run a deficit, the council voted in February to shut down 21 of the county’s 36 libraries, remove bus subsidies and suspend road repairs. (A court recently blocked the decision to close the libraries.) At the meeting earlier this month, some councilors seemed resigned to the angry public response.

“I am happy to apologize,” said Richard Auger, a Tory councilor. “I think mistakes were made,” he added. “It’s a situation we’re responsible for.”

The crisis is a political embarrassment for Conservatives, who are already divided into warring camps over Brexit. The former leader of the Northamptonshire council, Heather Smith, has resigned from her position, and from the Conservative Party. Investigators sent from London blamed her and other councilors for mishandling local finances, even as she blamed London for impossible mandates and a refusal to consider higher taxes.

Sounding increasingly like their Labour opponents, some Conservative councilors in Northamptonshire are now talking about stopping the outsourcing of public services and demanding tax increases.

“I was a believer that we had to save money, but there had to be other ways than to slash and burn,” said John Ekins, a recently elected Conservative councilor in Northamptonshire. “How did we get to where we are? What the hell has been going on?”

The Graph of Doom

They called it the Graph of Doom.

It was 2013, and the Northamptonshire council was presented a Power Point chart that depicted an unavoidable contradiction: a sharp, rising public demand for local services contrasting with a sharp cutback in money from the national government, as part of the austerity program led by Conservatives in London.

“It was showing how we were all heading towards this cliff edge,” recalled Ms. Smith, who was then a senior councilor. The cliff edge was a shortfall of $175 million that needed to be addressed by 2020.

A committed Tory, Ms. Smith initially embraced the calls for austerity, as did many in reliably Conservative Northamptonshire. “Being a Conservative-run council, everybody accepted that the country had been overspending and that it was time to scale all of that back,” Ms. Smith said.

The problem was how to do it. The council needed to find huge savings, but it also had limited revenue sources.

Raising taxes was ruled out, deemed ideologically unpalatable while the Conservatives were making austerity-related cutbacks. Eric Pickles, the government minister who oversaw local government financing between 2010 and 2015, said it was a “moral duty” for the Tories to keep local taxes low.

“Some Conservative councils had a big fight over it, and said, ‘No, we’re not doing it,’ ” Ms. Smith said. “They had a huge amount of pressure on them.”

Northamptonshire also had a more unusual problem. Many Conservative councils were partly shielded from central-government cuts because they had large earnings from the commercial real-estate tax, called business rates.

But the concentration of blue blood in Northamptonshire actually hurt its tax base. Much of the region is owned by gentry like the Duke of Buccleuch, thought to be the largest private landowner in Scotland and England, and Earl Spencer, uncle to Princes William and Harry, heirs to the British throne.

Those holdings are generally agricultural land, said Guy Shrubsole, who runs the investigative blog “Who Owns England?” And agricultural land is exempt from business rates, leaving Northamptonshire even more dependent on funding from London.

Faced with the cold reality of the Graph of Doom, council leaders decided that the old ways of doing business no longer applied. The council’s then chief executive, Paul Blantern, designed the “Next Generation Model,” an initiative that pivoted the council, like many others across the country, toward outsourcing.

Under “Next Gen,” the council would become a commissioning body, spinning off many of the services it had been performing and, in the process, saving millions of pounds a year.

One initiative, Olympus Care Services, was founded in 2014, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the council. It was created to oversee adult social care services, with the intention of generating extra revenue by selling off surplus bed spaces to privately funded care customers.

During its first years, Olympus managed to post modest profits, as well as reducing the overall cost to the council.

But it never achieved the projected cost savings, and as budget pressure from the council mounted, it started recording losses — around $4 million in 2016 and $1.25 million in 2017.

“It’s all such a perfect storm,” said Simon Edwards, director of the County Councils Network, a cross-party group that represents England’s local authorities. “Northamptonshire was trying to be too innovative too quickly, outsourcing this and spinning off that, that they thought would save them money and protect some of the services.”

“They did some things wrong,” he added. “But inexorably austerity is leading many counties into very difficult financial positions.”

The outsourcing experiment collapsed last year, before it had fully started. By February, the council realized it had no way out, issuing a formal notification of de facto bankruptcy. In response, Conservative leaders in London dispatched government inspectors.

In March, the inspectors issued a damning report.

Max Caller, the chief inspector who wrote the report, said that the county council’s troubles were self-inflicted and that the Next Gen approach did not have any “documented underpinning” that set out how it was expected to deliver savings.

“The things that they did were unwise,” he said in an interview. “You could say that they didn’t want to face up to the challenges of austerity, but all the other councils have.”

According to his findings, he said, Northamptonshire overspent by $130 million over three years and took no steps to rein in expenditure. “Everything has been a waste of money.”

Still, he said of the financial problems afflicting other councils: “You can’t go year after year holding down taxation rates at local level and taking the money away and expecting the same level of service. That’s not possible.”

Ms. Smith and other local Conservatives said the inspectors’ report was unfair, and that the national government was wrongly scapegoating the council. She said other Conservatives, locally and in London, grew irritated with her insistence that insufficient funding was the core problem.

“They wanted me to shut up about us being underfunded,” she said.

This year, the government announced some new money for councils, including about $200 million for adult social services. Even so, some experts say that councils are still staring at a $4 billion funding hole.

In response, according to an annual government survey of council leaders, an overwhelming majority of county councils across England plan to raise council tax, their levy on homes, 5.99 percent this year — the maximum the central government will allow. Many have also said they would like to raise business rates, a move the central government is still rejecting.

Before declaring bankruptcy, Northamptonshire took the desperate step of selling and leasing back a $70 million headquarters building it opened in October. The move brought widespread public ridicule and helped prompt the arrival of the government inspectors.

Northamptonshire’s financial troubles were clear from the moment the government began to pull back on grants to local authorities, officials said. What they did not expect was that a Conservative government in London would let the county slide into bankruptcy.

‘The Whole Process Has Gone Mad’

On July 24, the Northamptonshire Council issued a Section 114 notice that banned any new expenditure of public money, after realizing it needed to save almost $90 million more this year. In laymen’s terms, this meant that the council was declaring de facto bankruptcy for a second time.

Politics is usually sharply divided in the county, with Labour on the left and the Tories on the right. But by the time the council voted to shut down most of the county’s libraries, the overall scope of the cutbacks startled many people in both parties. In recent years, the council had also closed local centers for children and sharply reduced educational funding.

But it was the vote to shut down the libraries that struck the sharpest nerve, even in affluent villages like Roade, where the local library is described as “a pub without pints.”

“I couldn’t face the libraries being cut,” said Sam Rumens, a Conservative councilor who voted against that measure, as he sat recently with some Labour officials at the town hall discussing “problems of capitalism.” (“This is one of the leftiest views you’ll get out of me today,” he told them.)

“There was a very sharp intake of breath,” he recalled when he said that he would oppose the cuts. Labour lawmakers cheered and members of the public who attended the debate on the budget this winter roared their approval.

“The whole process has gone mad,” said Jason Smithers, another Conservative politician and the incoming mayor of Higham Ferrers, as he strolled through the town, which has yellow-brick houses that look straight out of a Jane Austen novel and a grocer selling organic duck and goose eggs.

Like Mr. Rumens, he was a dissenter from his Conservative colleagues. “They were like cowboys running through the town,” he said of colleagues who voted for the library cuts. Mr. Smithers said he supported higher taxes even if it would jeopardize his political fortunes. “I’m a Conservative through and through,” he insisted. “But you’ve got to be realistic.”

Council leaders in Northamptonshire said they had done everything by the Conservative government rule book.

“We did everything that the government asked for,” said one senior council official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity. There was even a handbook prepared by Mr. Pickles, the minister in London, on “50 ways” councils could save money. It suggested banning mineral water in council meetings, scrapping subsidized canteens in favor of local sandwich delivery firms and opening coffee shops in libraries.

In Horton, a village where elegant mansions peek from behind wooded lanes, Wedgwood Swepston, 57, was out inspecting his Land Rover. An Aston Martin idled nearby.

“They’ve been austere in the wrong places,” he said of the government. “When austerity affects people who cannot look after themselves, then you need to question whether austerity has gone too far.”

When asked about his party affiliation, he became thoughtful. “I suppose I’m now what you call a ‘floater,’ ” he said.

“It makes me cross,” said Gloria Wagstaff, 77, expressing her discontent with typical British understatement as she waited for a bus in Higham Ferrers. “The whole government has lost its way.”

“Chief exec suspended over election failures leaves council by mutual consent”

Amongst other things, our CEO “misplaced” 6,000 voters by using inadequate means of registering them and had to explain himself (not terribly well in Owl’s opinion) to a Parliamentary committee:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/10/14/official-transcript-of-eddc-ceo-evidence-to-parliamentary-committee-on-voter-engagement/

“A chief executive who was suspended over failures in the running of the 2017 general election process has left by mutual consent.

John Sellgren was suspended from his post at Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council in November 2017 after a review by Andrew Scallon, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, which found that more than 500 postal voters were disenfranchised, and close to 1,000 potential electors not included on the register.

A statement from the council on Sellgren’s departure said: “We would like to place on record our thanks for John’s efforts during his seven years with us. The council recently had its first all-out elections and the new administration has an ambitious manifesto and many significant projects to deliver in the years ahead.

“With this in mind the authority will now consider what management leadership arrangements to put in place to support this programme.”

Sellgren said: “I have enjoyed my time at Newcastle and send my best wishes to the dedicated team of staff and partners with whom it has been a pleasure to have worked.”

The council said it wanted to point out that there had been no additional payments made to Mr Sellgren.

Labour’s Paul Farrelly held the Newcastle-under-Lyme seat by 30 votes with 21,124 to his Conservative rival’s 21,094.

The Scallon report was commissioned shortly after the election when claims were made that some students at Keele University and postal voters were unable to vote despite following the correct procedures.
Some said they were turned away from polling stations despite having polling cards with them, and others who said they had registered to vote by the deadline were turned away for not having provided extra information required.

Scallon’s report said: “Human error and judgement and a lack of knowledge were responsible for the things that went wrong and led to the disenfranchisement of a significant number of people, raising questions about the mandate of the candidate declared elected as Newcastle-under-Lyme’s member of Parliament.”

He noted inadequate performance by Mr Sellgren (as acting returning officer/electoral registration officer) and consultants, worsened by a lack of experience among elections office staff and over-reliance on a software system, which was not properly managed.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36393%3Achief-exec-suspended-over-election-failures-leaves-council-by-mutual-consent&catid=59&Itemid=27

So many problems worrying the Electoral Reform Society …

Why it’s time to shine a light on ‘dark ads’ online:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-its-time-to-shine-a-light-on-dark-ads-online/

In these divided times, a new consensus is emerging around our broken election laws:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/in-these-divided-times-a-new-consensus-is-emerging-around-our-broken-election-laws/

Our democracy faces many threats – but the government has picked the wrong priority:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/our-democracy-faces-many-threats-but-the-government-has-picked-the-wrong-priority/

Campaign regulation is needed now before all trust is gone:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaign-regulation-is-needed-now-before-all-trust-is-gone/

Evo-North: 11 business-led Local Enterprise Partnerships unite to hijack funding formerly controlled by local authorities

Coming soon to a group of Local Enterprise Partnerships on your doorstep.

On 9 July 2018 it was announced that 11 Northern Local Enterprise Partnerships would join together as “Evo-North”:

“Christine Gaskell, chair of the Cheshire and Warrington LEP and vice-chair of NP11, said: “To translate the Northern Powerhouse concept into increasing impact requires new types of conversations across the region and at the heart of this collaboration are common goals which transcend local interests.”

Gaskell noted that the The NP11 will serve as a “strong coherent regional voice” with national government about the potential of an innovation-led economy for the North.”

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/council-for-the-north-on-the-way-aimed-at-aligning-businesses-for-northern-powerhouse?dm_i=4WAR,1AG5,WEIUK,3PBB,1

Now we see the full take-over of former local authority funding by this new business-led UNELECTED group as a press release publicising one of its forthcoming events makes clear:

“Following last month’s announcement from Northern Powerhouse minister Jake Berry that 11 LEPs will form the government-funded body ‘NP11’ to act as a modern-day ‘Council for the North’, last week, a cross-party group of MPs called for £100bn investment to transform the north of England’s transport by 2050 and for the date of Northern Powerhouse Rail to be brought forward to 2032.

This makes EvoNorth the perfect opportunity to put your products and services in front of the budget-holders who are actively seeking them. You get the opportunity to ask questions and network with the people responsible for delivering the Northern Powerhouse by attending this exclusive event. You can benefit from branding and exhibition opportunities by contacting the events team on 0161 833 6320, and you can also submit an enquiry or click here to contact us by email.

EvoNorth is an important event and platform where the Northern Powerhouse is discussed and debated across a wide range of topics including skills, employment & apprenticeships; digital revolution and innovation; health and social care; wellbeing & fulfilment; and infrastructure, business and inward investment.

It stands out from the crowd with its immersive series of lively and engaging Q&As, roundtable discussions, workshops and exhibitions. You can be a part of this exciting opportunity by attending, exhibiting or sponsoring: just contact the events team on 0161 833 6320, submit an enquiry or click here to contact us by email.”

https://cognitivepublishing.co.uk/4WAR-1AG5-B6WEIUK95/cr.aspx

So, very, very soon our district, our county and our region will almost certainly be in the grip of these unelected business people who have already shown their conflicts of interest countless times.

And we can do nothing to stop them …. unless the Conservative government which has enthusiastically x nay zealously – driven this initiative is removed from power.

Taylor Wimpey, Archant, EDDC and red dust in Littleham, Exmouth : “fake news”?

Below is information from an Exmouth resident sent to an Archant local reporter regarding development at Littleham, Exmouth, the “red dust” it is creating and its effect on a large number of frustrated residents.

The resident has received no reply to either email and the newspaper has not balanced its original mild article to reflect the information in these emails:

11 August 2018:

Ms Brainwood [Archant reporter who wrote original article]:

Further to my email from last week I write to inform you of the following. It has been noted by the way that you did not pay me the courtesy of a reply.

Local residents are quite rightly annoyed that your article gave false impressions.

You reported the following :

1. The only residents to be affected were two elderly people in Buckingham Close.
2. The only area affected was indeed Buckingham Close.
3. Taylor Wimpey were doing everything they could to minimise the red dust site vehicles generated.
4. EDDC were happy that the red dust was “ within limits “.
5. Environmental Health Officers from EDDC were quite happy with the overall situation.

The real situation could not be further from the truth.

If you had asked local residents they would have informed you the red dust was experienced in Littleham Road, Midway, The Crescent, Jarvis Close, The Broadway, Douglas Road and Cranford Road just to name a few areas.

Local resident who I have spoken to agree your article is at best sloppy journalism and at worst, fake news.

I read on the Exmouth Journal website your Group Editor Philip Griffin tells us the paper is “ respected for it`s balanced reporting “. We all had a good laugh at that.

For you information the cycle path in Jarvis Close north of Plumb Park is being currently dug up by South West Water to lay pipes. The work will last for 5 weeks. More excessive noise, more disruption and even more dust just a couple of metres from residences in Littleham Road.

Finally, it is your prerogative not to reply to my emails, it is our prerogative not to purchase your paper. “

and the resident’s earlier email to which the resident also had no reply:

“2 August 2018

To: laura.brainwood@archant.co.uk
Subject: Red dust causes misery for residents near Plumb Park development

I would like to make you aware of a few facts regarding the current red dust problem that you reported on in the 1st August 2018 edition of the Exmouth Journal.

“ Taylor Wimpey have taken measures to reduce the impact “. This is not correct.

When I have contacted their Exeter call centre ( 01392 442617 ) they say dust suppression is taking place, but it is not. We are told a water bowser “ damp down” every day. As the site is visible from my bedroom window in Littleham Road, 30 meters from the north fence, I can inform you it never takes place. We are also told a street sweeper is used to suppress the dust. We have never seen the vehicle.

A resident who lives in Jarvis Close (his wife has a very serious case of COPD), confronted the Site Manger face to face recently and was told “damping down“ takes place in certain areas every 20 minutes. This is a lie.

I have contacted Environmental Health to complain about the red dust. I am not the only Littleham Road resident to have done this.

Alice Gill EHO did call back to inform me that Taylor Wimpy is taking action to reduce the dust. She is telling me what Taylor Wimpey is telling her. It is just not happening. Recent emails informing them again, that there is still a big problem have been ignored.

Food has to be covered to stop contamination from the dust in the kitchen. As windows are left open due to the warm weather we even have dust on tooth brushes in the bathroom. It has permeated into closed cupboards. Yes. It is inside the house!!!

In the meantime elderly resident who have COPD have to inhale red dust, along with everybody else, just because Taylor Wimpey can`t be bothered to do anything.

EDDC Development Management Committee was informed in June 2013 by many local residents that this development would blight the lives of local people. They were not interested.

Perhaps your readers would like to know a few facts regarding this issue, plus the current disinterest.”

“These [Tory] councils smashed themselves to bits. Who will pick up the pieces?”

“The people running an arm of the British state confessed last week that they can no longer do their job. That is not how the collapse of Northamptonshire county council has been presented, but it is what’s happened. From now on it will provide only the legal minimum of services. From children in care to bin collection, all are in line for “radical reductions”. Normal service will not be resumed for years, if ever.

Nor is Northants alone. East Sussex says it will follow suit. Soon will come a third. Then a fourth. Make no mistake, this is a hinge point in British politics.

The obituaries for local government are already being written, and come in two flavours. For ministers, the calamity is local bungling; critics snort that town halls have been pulverised by the cuts imposed by David Cameron and Theresa May. Neither argument is wholly inaccurate, yet both miss the truth. What is happening in Corby and other well-to-do authorities is the collapse of an entire ideology.

Call it pulverism, the idea that councils should use financial crises not merely to make savings but to smash up and reshape the public sector. Tried out here and there for decades, in the past few years pulverism has gone nationwide. Aiding and abetting and cheering it on have been the biggest beasts in Conservatism. Under this regime, financial mismanagement isn’t opposed to austerity – but feeds upon it, as local officials hand over taxpayer cash to “project managers” on eye-watering day rates and any passing huckster in pinstripes. It leads to town halls being looted by multinationals for millions, even while adults with learning disabilities are turfed out of their homes to save pennies. If this sounds familiar that’s because what is playing out in local government is an extreme version of the story still unfolding in Whitehall. And one of the best places to see it is on the northern outskirts of the capital.

The London borough of Barnet is the alpha and omega of pulverism. It was a role model for Northamptonshire, and the two are eerily similar. Both true blue Tory; both preaching the need for sound finances while raiding their contingency funds and refusing to raise council taxes; both happy to chuck millions at consultants and build themselves swanky headquarters. And, crucially, both adamant that their council’s future lies in smashing itself up and handing out the shards to big companies to provide the bulk of public services.

Budget crisis takes Northamptonshire council into uncharted territory
Barnet’s plan was to slash direct employees from 3,200 to just 332, while Northamptonshire wanted to outsource 95% of its staff. It was cartoonish, it was reckless, it was grotesque. Most of all, it was meant to serve as an example to the rest of the country of how the right can mobilise austerity for its own brutish ends. Northamptonshire is now a front-page scandal, but Barnet is one to watch. I’ve been writing about it on these pages almost since the start of the great contracting out. Largely unnoticed by the newspapers, this summer the council confessed that it faces a giant financial black hole – precisely the fate that their masterplan was meant to safeguard against. The council will now have to cut services even more drastically. To heap on the humiliation, it must also rip up its outsourcing strategy.

Barnet’s Tories raced down this road even before the 2008 financial crash, eventually unveiling the “easyCouncil” model. Just as Cameron’s big alibi was that wretched note from Labour’s Liam Byrne, saying “there’s no money left”, so Barnet brandished a “graph of doom” showing its budgetary crunch. Bringing in the private sector – in particular the FTSE giant Capita, which snared two vast 10-year contracts worth about £500m – was meant to be the fix. It would ensure better public services for less money.

Wrong on both counts. Under outsourcing, basic bits of local administration are now a bad joke. Barnet’s pensions are in such a state that last year the regulator fined Capita for not filing essential information on time. Roads, also managed by Capita, are so potholed that they became a big issue in the May elections. Recently a Capita employee working for Barnet was jailed for 62 instances of fraud worth a total of £2m. He had violated financial controls for well over a year, yet the council admitted to me that the crimes were spotted neither by it nor by Capita, but by the employee’s own bank.

All of this is costing not less money, but more. Just how much more not even the council’s leaders are clear. The Tories went into the May elections boasting of the borough’s financial stability; the next month they confessed to a black hole of £62m by the middle of next decade. To stave off ruin, the axe will be wielded again.

Both Barnet and Capita claim that outsourcing has delivered “significant financial savings”. That is doubtless true on the core work contracted out – but outsourcing companies always make their money by charging for extras. Resident and blogger John Dix reviews the invoices submitted by Capita under the outsourcing contracts (256 for the last financial year alone) and can tell you what those extras typically include. A parent phoning the library to check if a Harry Potter is in stock? Capita used to charge £8 a call. Training for senior officers? Capita pockets £1,200 for just one session.

Just as I and others warned at the outset, having handed over so much to Capita, councillors have effectively lost control of their own council. Last month the council admitted to “significant issues” with Capita’s new system to manage social care – including the failure to “efficiently bill clients and pay invoices” – making it impossible to keep tabs on costs. Not that Barnet isn’t trying to monitor its outsourcing contracts. It’s created an entire parallel administration to do so, costing £7.8m each year in pay and perks. Jorge Luis Borges wrote a story about a map matching precisely in size and detail the territory it depicted. Today, in the entrails of a suburban bureaucracy, his dream has at last come true.

All this cash could have been spent on something other than ideology. Take the £24m spent on management consultants primarily to draw up the plans for outsourcing, or the running total of £90m that Barnet has since shelled out on agency and temp workers: how many school dinners, carers for older residents or council houses could that have paid for?

Instead, that money has been spent on projects that served as a launchpad for a handful of careers, such as Mike Freer who as Barnet leader came up with the easyCouncil model and is today a Tory whip in the Commons. Or Nick Walkley, the former Barnet chief executive who was responsible for implementing that model and who now heads a Whitehall quango. Plum jobs for them, worsening public services for the residents left behind.

All this is directly linked to another issue stalking Britain: the rise of aggressively racist politics. Under austerity, Cameron and his ministers took migrants’ taxes – then, with devastating cynicism, blamed migrants for putting pressure on the NHS, schools and other services that they themselves were starving of money. To further their own careers they fanned the embers of race hate. In places like Northants and Barnet, residents who have already seen their child’s youth centre shut, their nan lose her care visits or their buses stop running will now see even sharper cuts to their services – purely to keep their councils alive. It will not be the councillors who cop the blame for that, nor the predatory outsourcing firms.

It will be the buggy-pushing mum in a headscarf, the teenager in a wheelchair trying to get on a crowded bus, the Polish guy on minimum wage. They’ll be the handy targets when frustrations rise and tempers blow. Because the point about pulverism is that it is never the originators who get pulverised.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/13/councils-austerity-outsourcing-northamptonshire-barnet?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Devon CCGs want to merge (but looks like they already did it!)

Owl says: anyone recallveing consulted about this? And surely, if it is for cost-sVing, all previous financial scenarios at the two CCGs must be recalculated. And shouldn’t this be rescrutinised by DCC?

“North East and West (NEW) Devon CCG is hoping to merge with South Devon and Torbay CCG in April next year. Both CCGs have expressed an interest to NHS England to merge the organisations, in what they say is the ‘next natural step’. In May last year, NEW Devon CCG refuted claims it had ‘gone bust’ – though it did have a defecit of £42million in 2016/17.

Last year (2017/18) NEW Devon CCG had a planned defecit just shy of £50million.

It is thought the merger would help both organisations face funding challenges in the years ahead; they have already made a saving of £4million working together in the last year. This has includinged merging the two executive teams and establishing a common governing body and committees.
Executive directors now sit in Devon-wide roles working across both CCGs.

Dr Sonja Manton, director of strategy at the two CCGs in Devon, said: “We have made significant progress working as a health and care system in Devon over the past two years.

“As commissioners (buyer) of health care services for our local population, our two CCGs have worked more closely together for over a year, and this has brought many improvements and benefits such as speeding up decision making and making cost savings and efficiencies of nearly £4million on running costs.

“We have achieved much more together than we would have working separately. “A merger of our two organisations is the natural next step, and we have expressed an interest to NHS England to merge our two organisations from April 2019. “We are working with staff, clinicians, partners and stakeholders to ensure that everyone is involved in the changes as they develop. “This is an important step in our journey to better integrate health and care services to benefit our local communities.

“In Devon, we have well-established joint working arrangements with our local government partners and this will be strengthened as we design a new more integrated approach.”

https://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/proposals-to-merge-two-devon-ccgs-1-5642433

“One in four HS2 workers on six-figure salaries”

“Almost one in four HS2 employees are being paid more than £100,000 a year, it has been revealed.

The news comes despite the government insisting it is “keeping a tough grip” on the cost of the controversial project.

Some 318 people – out of the 1,346 employed on the new high-speed railway – are earning at least £100,000 in salary and perks, according to a information given to The Times under the Freedom of Information Act.

This number is an increase compared with the 155 who were paid six figures in 2015/16, the newspaper reported.

Some 112 people are receiving more than £150,000 annually and 15 have pay packets topping £251,000.

An HS2 Ltd spokeswoman said: “In a highly technical project of the scale and complexity of HS2 it is necessary to employ the right level of expertise and knowledge to deliver the programme successfully.

“As the project moves increasingly towards construction, as does our need for highly technical support increase.

“HS2 Ltd is committed to controlling costs and take our responsibility to taxpayers money very seriously, and the programme remains on track and within our funding envelope.”

The pay figures include salaries, bonuses and pension contributions. …”

https://news.sky.com/story/quarter-of-hs2-workers-on-pay-deals-over-100k-11465148

“Jobcentre Staff Told By DWP Not To Record Number Of People They Send To Foodbanks”

“Jobcentre staff are told not to keep a record of the number of people they direct to foodbanks, despite appearing to send thousands of people to charities providing food parcels to hard-pressed families.

A directive, issued by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), tells staff they must not use the term “referral” or “voucher”, and should not keep any record of the number of people they “signpost” to foodbanks.

Critics have urged the Government to halt the practice as ministers have used the lack of records to dodge questions about the impact of welfare reforms.

The revelation also indicates how charities are being relied upon to support the benefits system, but not to what extent. One major food bank charity says it hands out nearly 60,000 food parcels every year as a result of “signposting”.

The Whitehall department’s so-called ‘Operational Instructions’ were obtained following a Freedom of Information request in February which asked for details on what staff are told to do if people ask for food aid.

The instructions state that instead of offering referrals or vouchers to claimants, Jobcentre staff must only offer “signposting slips”.”

In bold letters, the instructions say: “The signposting slip must not be referred to as a Foodbank Voucher.”

The only time Jobcentre staff are allowed to keep track is if the foodbank makes a request, the instructions reveal. …”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/foodbanks-records-jobcentre-dwp_uk_5b61c1bde4b0b15aba9ebcc9

“Parish and town councils overwhelmingly support single code of conduct”

“Some 90% of parish and town councils surveyed would support a single, mandatory code of conduct, research by the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) has revealed.

The NALC survey also found that nearly 70% of local councils would like new powers to impose additional sanctions.

“At the moment sanctions used by local councils include apologies and training. However, around 60% of local councils believe these are neither sufficient to punish breaches of the code of conduct or deter future breaches,” the association said.

Almost 40% of local councils meanwhile stated that their members had not received any training and 20% reported that most members did not understand the rules around declaring interests.

Cllr Sue Baxter, chairman of NALC, said: “NALC does not believe the current ethical standards arrangements are working as well as they could and a review of the regime is something we have long called for. We would like to see stronger sanctions available to local councils, including the power of suspension and disqualification.

“In light of our research, we are also asking the government to invest £2m towards a national training programme that would see all new councillors undertake training on ethical standards and the code of conduct as part of their induction.”

The research comes as the Committee on Standards in Public Life is conducting a review into local government ethical standards. The committee is due to report to the Prime Minister by the end of the year.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36290%3Aparish-and-town-councils-overwhelmingly-support-single-code-of-conduct-nalc&catid=59&Itemid=27

“Virgin awarded almost £2bn of NHS contracts in the past five years”

“Virgin has been awarded almost £2bn worth of NHS contracts over the past five years as Richard Branson’s company has quietly become one of the UK’s leading healthcare providers, Guardian analysis has found.

In one year alone, the company’s health arm, Virgin Care, won deals potentially worth £1bn to provide services around England, making it the biggest winner among private companies bidding for NHS work over the period.

The company and its subsidiaries now hold at least 400 contracts across the public sector – ranging from healthcare in prisons to school immunisation programmes and dementia care for the elderly.

This aggressive expansion into the public sector means that around a third of the turnover for Virgin’s UK companies now appear to be from government contracts. …

Sara Gorton, the head of health at the trade union Unison, said: “The company has been so keen to get a foothold in healthcare, it’s even been prepared to go to court to win contracts, moves that have cost the NHS dearly.

“While the NHS remains dangerously short of funds, taxpayers’ money shouldn’t be wasted on these dangerous experiments in privatisation.”

One former surgery manager who spoke to the Guardian said Virgin appeared to be paid more for doing less in her area, although the company said “because the contracts are generally not directly comparable, we don’t believe it to be true”.

Guardian analysis reveals the way the company that began selling records in the early 1970s has diversified in a bewildering way over recent years. …

In March 2017, it had almost 1,200 staff – a five-old increase from the year before. Over the same period, its turnover increased from £133m to £204m and its operating profit rose from £7.3m to £8m.

Though healthcare is a growing part of the group, Virgin still appears to make most of its money from transport.

Virgin UK Holdings, the UK business which holds its rail and healthcare ventures, reported revenues of £1.5bn in 2016 and paid £22m in tax.

Earlier this year, Virgin Trains had its west coast line franchise extended for another year. …

Paul Evans, the director of the campaign group NHS Support Federation, said: “Virgin Care are the biggest private sector winner to emerge out of the NHS experiment with competition and outsourcing.

“We don’t know the final shape of it, but players like Virgin and Care UK clearly see a big opportunities for business to continue to deliver clinical services for the NHS.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/05/virgin-awarded-almost-2bn-of-nhs-contracts-in-the-past-five-years

Governance and transparency – How does our Local Enterprise Partnership measure up?

A long read, but if you worry about the unaccountability of our Local Enterprise Partnership (and you should) it is a “must read” – note the requirement for LEPs to be scrutinised by council scrutiny committees:

For good or ill the Government has chosen Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to play a key part in assisting in the delivery of government policies to support local economic growth.

There are 38 LEPs in England. Through the Local Growth Fund, the government has committed £12 billion to local areas between 2015 and 2021; £9.1 billion of this is through Growth Deals with LEPs. The government also sees LEPs as key to its new industrial strategy. But performance has varied as acknowledged in the government’s publication of July 2018 “Strengthened Local Enterprise Partnerships”.

Amongst other things this paper announced that all the recommendations of last year’s Mary Ney review (see below), and this year’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on Governance and Departmental oversight of the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough (GCGP) LEP, would be accepted.

Now is the moment to review these three publications which, taken together, amount to a scathing criticism of the way LEP governance arrangements, and government oversight of them, have, to date, been working.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/896/896.pd

In 2016 the PAC reported on the governance of LEPs and made clear recommendations for improvement which were accepted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. [Footnote: East Devon Alliance submitted evidence to this inquiry].

Despite this, things are going seriously wrong and, in the words of the PAC: “the Department needs to get its act together and assure taxpayers that it is monitoring how LEPs spend taxpayers’ money and how it evaluates results.

In the case of CGGP (Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership) the LEP could not respond satisfactorily to allegations of conflicts of interest, levelled by an MP. The governance arrangements were not up to standard. There were no comprehensive conflicts of interest policies nor an up to date register of interests for board members. In addition, the LEP was not acting transparently.

In March 2017, the Department applied the nuclear option and withheld the release of money to the LEP. Then, in December 2017, the LEP went into voluntary liquidation, following the Chair’s resignation the previous month.

Key findings by the PAC were that GCGP LEP did not comply with expected standards in public life, particularly in terms of accountability and transparency. Also that the Department’s oversight system failed to identify that GCGP LEP as one which should have raised concerns. Furthermore, that the Department has a long way to go before it can be sure that all LEPs have implemented Mary Ney’s review properly.

MARY NEY REVIEW

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-local-enterprise-partnership-governance-and-transparency

Which leads us to: the “Review of Local Enterprise Partnership Governance and Transparency”, Led by Mary Ney, Non-Executive Director, DCLG Board, October 2017. This is an internal departmental review but nevertheless surprisingly thorough.

The review makes 17 recommendations (all now formally accepted) covering the following topics: Culture & Accountability; Structure & Decision-Making; Conflicts of Interest; Complaints; Section 151 [financial accounting] Officer Oversight; Transparency; Government Oversight & Enforcement. Just a few of these 17 recommendations of particular importance are highlighted out below.

Many LEPs have codes of conduct reflecting the requirements of company board directors and do not sufficiently embrace the dimension of public sector accountability. This is inadequate as it does not reflect the dual dimension (i.e. public and private) of the role of board members.

The code of conduct, which all board members and staff sign up to, should explicitly require the Nolan Principles of public life to be adopted as the basis for this code. E.g. the notion of integrity whereby holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

Key features of decision-making to ensure good governance and probity should include:

• a clear strategic vision and priorities set by the Board which has been subject to wide consultation against which all decisions must be judged;
• open advertising of funding opportunities;
• a sub-committee or panel with the task of assessing bids/decisions
• independent due diligence and assessment of the business case and value for money;
• specific arrangements for decisions to be signed off by a panel comprising board members from the local authority, in some cases including a power of veto;
• Section 151 officer line of sight on all decisions and ability to provide financial advice;
• use of scrutiny arrangements to monitor decision-making and the achievements of the LEP.

Conflict of Interest declarations must include employment, directorships, significant shareholdings, land and property, related party transactions, membership of organisations, gifts and hospitality, sponsorships. Interests of household members to also be considered.

LEPs to include in their local statements how scenarios of potential conflicts of interest of local councillors, private sector and other board members will be managed whilst ensuring input from their areas of expertise in developing strategies and decision-making, without impacting on good governance.

LEPs will need to publish a whistleblowing policy.

As part of transparency, in addition to the obvious things such as agendas and minutes, LEPs should maintain on their websites a published rolling schedule of the projects funded giving a brief description, names of key recipients of funds/ contractors and amounts by year.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE – STRENGHTENED LEPs

Click to access Strengthened_Local_Enterprise_Partnerships.pdf

In accepting these recommendations the government in its “strengthened LEP” paper does add a few points of clarification which are worth noting.

Readers may recall our LEP, Heart of the South West (HotSW), proposing in its 2015 prospectus “towards a devolution deal” to deliver, amongst other things, a world-class integrated health and care system within our communities. A prospectus produced without any public consultation. Well, the government has taken on board a further PAC criticism that it has not been clear about the current role, function, and purpose of LEPs.

The government now says it will set all Local Enterprise Partnerships a single mission to deliver Local Industrial Strategies to promote productivity.

Each Local Enterprise Partnership’s overall performance will be held to account through measures agreed in their delivery plans. The Government will work with Local Enterprise Partnerships to ensure that they have these plans in place by April 2019.

In addition, Government will commission an annual economic outlook to measure and publish economic performance across all Local Enterprise Partnerships and benchmark performance of individual Local Enterprise Partnerships. In the light of HotSW aim of a 4% annual growth rate and record-breaking productivity growth, starting this year, this might prove to be an interesting exercise.

Other points on topics such as increasing diversity of board members are covered in the previous Watch blog:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/07/27/government-proposes-shake-up-of-local-enterprise-partnerships/

MEANWHILE

The House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees was also investigating LEPs and made this recommendation in December 2017 [East Devon Alliance submitted evidence to this inquiry as well]:

“The Government to make clear how LEPs are to have democratic, and publicly visible, oversight. We recommend that upper tier councils, and combined authorities where appropriate, should be able to monitor the performance and effectiveness of LEPs through their scrutiny committees. In line with other public bodies, scrutiny committees should be able to require LEPs to provide information and attend committee meetings as required.”

Click to access 369.pdf

Voter registration for 2019 local elections begins

Owl says: keep an eye out for house-to-house canvassers for those who do not register. They have been few and far between in recent years, leading to around 6,000 eligible voters having been “missed”, leading to embarrassing questions (and answers) to EDDC’s Electoral Registration Officer (EDDC CEO Mark Williams, paid extra for this job) in Parliament:

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/voter-engagement-in-the-uk/oral/14118.html

“As part of East Devon’s annual voter registration canvass, households will soon be receiving a form asking residents to check whether the information that appears on the electoral register for those living at their address is correct.

The aim of the form is to ensure that the electoral register is up to date and to identify any residents who are not registered so that they can be encouraged to do so.

Local district, town and parish council elections are scheduled to take place in May 2019.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/east-devon-district-council-reminder-to-register-to-vote-1-5622986

People are urged to take the opportunity to make sure that when the elections take place, they will easily be able to take part.

Any residents who have any questions can contact the electoral services team at electoralservices@eastdevon.gov.uk or on 01395 571529

Russians give May’s Tories £800,000

“Theresa May could be forced to come clean on the source of Tory cash linked to Russia.

A report on meddling in UK politics by Vladimir Putin’s regime urges the Electoral Commission to devise “more stringent requirements for major donors to demonstrate the source of donations”.

The intervention by MPs on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee comes after a Mirror probe revealed the Prime Minister accepted a £50,000 donation from the wife of a former Russian minister – on the day she blamed Moscow for the Skripal poisoning.

In total, Mrs May has let more than £800,000 from Russia-linked sources into Tory coffers while PM.

Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Jon Trickett said she should hand it all back, adding: “Serious questions must be answered about why she thinks it is appropriate to accept this money after warning about Russian interference in the UK.”

And Lib Dem spokeswoman Christine Jardine said her “refusal” to explain donations “threatens the integrity of our democracy”.

A Tory spokesman said all donations are properly declared and comply with the law.”

http://flip.it/D1jX6R

US donors courted by Tory ultra-right wing think-tank

“A rightwing thinktank has been offering potential US donors access to government ministers and civil servants as it raises cash for research to support the free-trade deals demanded by hardline Brexiters, according to an investigation.

The director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was secretly recorded telling an undercover reporter that funders could get to know ministers on first-name terms and that his organisation was in “the Brexit influencing game”.

Mark Littlewood claimed the IEA could make introductions to ministers and said the thinktank’s trade expert knew Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and Liam Fox well.

The IEA chief was also recorded suggesting potential US donors could fund and shape “substantial content” of research commissioned by the thinktank.

This could hugely benefit US farmers by lifting the ban on the sale in the UK of beef from cattle treated with growth hormones and chlorine-washed chicken.

Speaking about what kind of Westminster access the IEA could provide donors with, Littlewood told the investigator: “I have absolutely no problem with people who have business interests, us facilitating those.”

The investigation, undertaken in May and June, also revealed the thinktank had already provided access to a minister for a US organisation.

The disclosures are likely to raise fresh questions about the independence and status of the IEA, which is established as an educational charity. Charity Commission rules state that “an organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/29/rightwing-thinktank-ministerial-access-potential-us-donors-insitute-of-economic-affairs-brexit

Very important case law on consultation

This has great relevance to NHS consultations, the wording of consultation comments, the treatment of those comments and the duties and respinsibility of the DCC Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise evidence presented.

It is going to be much easier to challenge flawed consultations.

Those involved in these matters MUST read the full document (see source at end of post. Only a couple of the relevant sections are published here but should be read with the whole document.

“… “Commentary on
R (ex parte Kohler) v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime
[2018] EWHC 1881

This Briefing Note considers the judgment handed down by Lord Justice Lindblom and Mr Justice Lewis on 20th July 2018. It details the circumstances of the case, its wider context and, in particular discusses practical issues which will be of concern to consultation practitioners.

Background

In common with other police forces, the Metropolitan Police has needed to make huge savings in its budget. Unsurprisingly it has led to a review of what premises they occupy and whether they still need over-the-counter services at their police stations.

In July 2017, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) published a Public Access and Engagement Strategy, a dual-purpose document simultaneously consulting the public about the future direction of public engagement on policing and seeking views on proposals to close or ‘swap’ 37 police counters.

The consultation was heavily criticised, and at the Institute, we published a detailed critique under the provocative title Is this the worst consultation of 2017?

https://www.consultationinstitute.org/worst-consultation-2017/

Some of the complaints were heeded and a revised set of questions emerged three weeks after its original launch.

The legal challenge

Professor Paul Kohler lives in Wimbledon and in 2014, was subjected to a serious assault. He believes his life was possibly saved only thanks to the prompt response by police from Wimbledon Police Station.

The MOPAC proposal included a provision for that facility to be transferred elsewhere in the London Borough of Merton – to Mitcham, so that the site at Wimbledon could be sold and generate capital receipts. These in turn, according to the consultation document, would help the Met Police fund technology improvements needed to support the case for changing public access and reduce the traditional reliance on police counters. …

The Kohler case spells an end to the practice of sending decision-makers a summary report (or an unreadable tome) with a message ‘Don’t worry, there’s nothing here to stop you from going ahead!’. If a failure to consider a specific argument can spell illegality following a consultation, someone somewhere has to decide what might constitute such an argument. Who can be trusted to decide?

The Consultation Institute View [on the case]

• The Kohler case is a game-changer, placing the Gunning Four Principle of ‘conscientious consideration ‘ at centre stage. There have been few comparable cases, as flawed consultations have, in the past failed the pre-determination or the sufficient information tests. It remains to be seen if the judgment opens the door to more claims that decision-makers never properly studied consultee submissions. It could happen!

• One consequence is that campaigners and other smart stakeholders will structure their comments to ensure that they cannot easily be summarised, and may specifically seek assurances that their submissions will have been read by decision-makers.

• To respond to such pressures and to safeguard themselves, consultors will need to look again at their data analysis practices, possibly strengthening the independent element both in analysis and in reporting to decision-makers. They will also need to be better at political risk assessments. Independent Quality Assurance becomes even more attractive for controversial consultations.

• The case for Public consultation hearings is further strengthened, as decision-makers will be able to prove that they heard and understood particular arguments. …”

Full document here:

Click to access briefingnote21-mopac.pdf

“Manchester launches consultation on planning system reform”

“Manchester City Council has set out measures it says will “improve the transparency” of the planning process, including adding public viability assessments for new housing projects.

The council has started a consultation on the changes, which it says would signal “a new approach for developer contributions”.

Among the key changes will be the inclusion of affordable housing statements and viability assessments for all new housing projects; typically, viability statements are not typically made available on the city’s planning portal.

The council said public affordable housing statements would “provide an overview of the affordability ambition of a new development”. Currently, the council stipulates that 20% of new homes should be designated as affordable.

Under the consultation, it is proposed that affordable housing statements are made public for schemes of 15 or more homes. Where no affordable housing is proposed, a full, un-redacted copy of the viability assessment will need to be submitted.

Meanwhile, the inclusion of viability assessments would allow the public to scrutinise developer requirements for Section 106 contributions.

These will be required when a project does not “include the necessary policy provision or financial contributions”, justified on viability grounds.

Viability assessments will need to be provided “in its entirety,” according to the consultation guidelines. This includes the purchase process, purchase costs, estimated construction costs, professional fees, land acquisition price, and estimated profit and developer target returns.

The consultation is now open and is set to run until 14 September, and the documents can be accessed here.

Cllr Angeliki Stogia, Manchester City Council’s executive member for environment, planning and transport, said: “We want the people of Manchester to have faith in the planning process so they know the decisions being made have been fully scrutinised and where possible, Section 106 is being negotiated working with developers on larger developments.

“This consultation signals a new approach for developer contributions so that everyone who has an interest in the planning process is clear whether affordable housing contributions will underpin new development in the city.

“The move towards publication of viability assessments and affordable housing statements mark the first step in making the process more open and transparent bolstering our clear commitment to affordable housing through the planning process.”

https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/manchester-launches-consultation-on-planning-system-reform/

Urgent action needed on political advertising

“Following a request by the Culture Media and Sport committee, Facebook released the adverts Vote Leave ran during the EU referendum.

The series of adverts targeted specific Facebook users – but in many it was not clear who had paid for them.

We know who sends us leaflets during elections – we should know who’s paying for online adverts too.

Openness and transparency should be the standard during election and referendum campaigns, not the exception.

Will you sign our petition for online imprints and to release all the official adverts from the EU referendum?”

Sign the petition:
https://action.electoral-reform.org.uk/page/28040/petition/1