Anyone interested in the role of micro-plastics in the marine environment may wish to provide evidence to this government inquiry:
Sidford Fields industrial park: Councillor Hughes talks as if it is a shoo-in
“ … DCC highways boss, Councillor Stuart Hughes said: “Facilities for pedestrians at Sidford Cross are less than ideal and that is unlikely to be helped once further development takes place at the proposed business park.
“We will be able to assess the transport assessment of the business park planning application in detail once it has been submitted to see what the impact of the development will be on this junction.
“From the initial site meeting we’ve had, it appears that the only sensible solution would be for an all-red phase of lights, with some form of pedestrian crossing across the middle of the junction – but design work would be needed on all of the possible options, because it would clearly impact on how the junction operates.”
Allowing time for survey and design work to be carried out, the earliest any proposal could be considered would be at the council’s autumn meeting.
Cllr Hughes admitted the council has a limited budget but expressed hope developer contributions could be negotiated, or external funding sought.”
So, that’s that then – Sidford Fields sorted, even down to a possible developer contribution, and even before a planning application is in.
Exmouth Town poll omnishambles – jump through almost invisible hoops to vote!
The poll will ask if Exmouth Town Council should approach East Devon District Council (EDDC) – which is behind the plans for Exmouth seafront – calling for further independent consultation.
Hoop 1: Town Poll (Parish Poll) is on Wednesday 20th April but voting can only take place between 4pm and 9pm.
Hoop 2: Postal and proxy votes are not applicable to this vote – though many will not (yet or maybe ever) know this.
Hoop 3: People will not be sent ballot cards they must just go to their polling station – if they have seen any (as yet unpublished) voting information
Hoop 4: Not all the usual polling stations will be used. No information available (yet or maybe ever) on where it WILL be possible to vote.
Good luck Exmouthians … you are going to need it. Anyone would think ….
Is our LEP already in the doggie dirt?
The more Owl reads about what our Local Enterprise Partnership should be doing and what it does do, the more it seems that the LEP inhabits a totally different universe to us where its own rules don’t apply
Check out this publication from December 2014: Her Majesty’s Government LEP Framework. And then contrast it with what has happened in the two plus years since it was published.
Click to access bis-14-1241-local-enterprise-partnership-LEP-national-assurance-framework.pdf
Here are a few choice highlights – let’s start with one that appears on the very last page of the document (page 17):
“Business cases must be published (and publicised) before funding approval decision is made so that external comment is possible. Opinions expressed by the public and stakeholders must be available to LTB members when decisions are being take.”
Does anyone recall being consulted about ANYTHING by our LEP? Has anyone SEEN a business case for anything?
And there is more:
“… 3.1 It is important that LEPs have clear arrangements in place which enable effective and meaningful engagement of local partners and the public. They should operate transparently giving people confidence that decisions made are proper, based on evidence, and capable of being independently scrutinised.
3.2 We expect LEPs to take a proportionate approach to sharing and publishing information, using the prompts set out below as the basis for determining what they release. We fully expect that there will be information which is not appropriate for publication – including information that is commercially confidential, and expect LEPs to use their own discretion in determining what shouldn’t be published. Our expectation however, is that the public should see that the LEP is applying similar standards of transparency as other public sector organisations over decisions it makes over public funding. Within reason we would therefore expect LEPs to:
• have a dedicated website through which local partners and the public can keep in touch with progress on implementing the Growth Deal, access key documents etc;
• publish their arrangements for making, and recording decisions, and for ensuring that papers, decisions, minutes, agendas etc are published in line with existing local authority rules and regulations [access to information, Schedule 12A of the LGA 1972, as amended by the FOI 2000];
• through their accountable local authority, ensure that Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulation requests are dealt with in line with relevant legislation;
• have a published conflicts of interest policy, register of interests covering any decision makers, and published complaints policy;
• ensure that there is appropriate local engagement – both with public and private stakeholders to inform key decisions and with the general public around future LEP strategy development, and progress against delivery of the SEP, including key projects and spend against those;
• publish arrangements for developing, prioritising, appraising and approving projects, with a view to ensuring that a wide range of delivery partners can be involved (see also Part 5 on value for money below);
• clearly set out the LEP’s priorities and mechanisms for maximising the social value of its investment funding and activities so that partners and beneficiaries can play an active role in the programme. …
… 4.2 The lead local authority, working with relevant officers will need to put in place appropriate arrangements for the proper use and administration of funding, building on the existing local government systems, and which fall under the annual audit of the local authorities accounts. The accountable local authority would also be responsible for ensuring that decisions are made in accordance with the local LGF assurance framework. …
… 5.4 Across both of these aspects, LEPs should ensure that they have robust processes in place which ensure all funding decisions are based on impartial advice. The arrangements set out in the local assurance framework will need to ensure a clear separation between those acting as scheme promoters and those advising decision makers will be maintained, so that the LEP is acting on impartial advice on the merits of (potentially competing) business cases.
5.5 LEPs should also ensure that arrangements are in place which support the active management of risk across all matters for which the LEP is responsible, including but not limited to propriety and value for money issues. This should include having a named individual of appropriate seniority who is responsible for the identification and management of risk.”
ANYONE SEEN THE IMPARTIAL ADVICE? Until recently, we had no published agendas or minutes, and even now we get only notes not full minutes.
But what can we do? Who do we tell? The government doesn’t want to know, it just wants an annual report. Our councils? No, they have gone into this with little or no consultation.
It is left to us, the public to attempt to hold these people to account. And how do they respond?
Listen to the deafening silence.
Billions of pounds being given to a few businessmen and even fewer career politicians, some of whom have heavily vested interests.
And the blame for this cannot now be left at the door of Labour or coalition politicians.
It is a national scandal that no-one powerful enough is prepared to call out. And who suffers – us.
“Five ways to power the UK that are far better than Hinkley Point”
” … Electricity demand is already falling. The Somerset site for Hinkley C was approved in 2010 but since then UK demand has already fallen by more than the plant will produce, about 25TWh a year or 7% of today’s demand. Due to repeated delays, Hinkley C is unlikely to produce electricity much before 2030, by which time six Hinkleys’ worth of electricity could have been cut from the national demand, according to a McKinsey report for the government.”
The article goes on to say that five different approaches – wind, solar, cost reductions, inter-connection and improved storage and flexibility – are a more rational scenario than Hinkley C.
Which of these alternatives is our LEP researching for our region – none of them. It is firmly committed to this government’s political decision to plough ahead with Hinkley C whatever the cost.
This is what happens when you put unelected business people, chosen we know not how and many with vested interests, in charge of a regional economy
Leadership
“John Redwood, the senior Tory MP and former leadership contender, delivered a warning shot to Cameron to tone down his campaigning.
He wrote on his blog:
“As he wishes to remain prime minister, he has to remember that the prime minister has to speak as best he can for the whole nation. As party leader he has to speak for the majority of his party.”
Now, reimagine this quote as EDDC:
“.. he [Diviani] has to remember that as Leader he has to speak as best he can for the whole of East Devon. As party leader he has to speak for the majority of his party.”
If only!
What is our LEP doing about preparing Plan B in case of Brexit?
It is possible they are doing nothing. We are not allowed to know – it is secret. Here is what some small and medium-sized companies are already doing:
“Above a factory floor of machines carving metal to within a millionth of a metre, Stephen Cheetham is preparing his company for the unknown: a British exit from the European Union.
Since the government announced a referendum on Britain’s future in Europe, Cheetham has deferred investment decisions, put off expensive hiring and even bought equipment with his own money to avoid straining the balance sheet. …
… smaller companies in the manufacturing heartlands, crucial to the economy and often inextricably linked to continental Europe, are formulating contingency plans that illustrate the risks facing businesses across the country and the steps being taken to mitigate them.
At the start of 2015, almost half of Britain’s private-sector turnover came from firms that employed fewer than 249 people, according to the Department for Business.
For Cheetham his “disaster plan” involves jettisoning nearly half of his 30 employees if a Brexit compounds the drag from an already slowing global economy at his firm in the English rural town of Hereford.
Across the nearby Welsh border, Gareth Jenkins, who runs a toolmaking firm, has identified which major customers in Europe are likely to abandon him should they have to accept higher costs or slower delivery times that might come from new border controls with EU countries if Britain leaves the bloc.
He has calculated the financial impact and says in a worst-case scenario he could lose 25 percent of his turnover. He plans to tell his 91 employees in the next couple of weeks that a vote to leave could force him to lay off a quarter of staff. …
… Adam Shuter, head of haulier Exact Logistics, is investigating whether he should set up a German office, which he thinks could cost less than the additional taxes and paperwork of serving EU customers from outside the bloc.
“For a small business, it’s quite a bit of investment,” he said. “It just adds a layer of administration.”
He is also gauging the extra customs costs his British customers might incur outside the EU, using non-members Norway and Switzerland as guides, and looking at how much it would cost to set up expensive software to handle border clearances.
… British importers also fear they will have to pay VAT sales tax when they take delivery of goods from the EU – rather than at the point of sale – making cashflow harder to manage.”
http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/Reuters/UKTopNews/~3/-5hiZnmQ1Wo/story01.htm
Gateshead asks sensible questions before committing to devolution
“Town hall leaders in the North East are making a series of demands on George Osborne on a number of key issues as talks to devolve powers to the region continue after councillors in Gateshead failed to endorse the latest deal.
An agreement would see the North East handed a raft of new powers and an extra £30m in regional funding in return for establishing an elected mayor as part of the Chancellor’s Northern Powerhouse agenda.
But Gateshead Council’s cabinet voted last week to reject the proposals, sparking doubts about whether the deal could be made.
The region’s six remaining local authorities are now looking to press ahead, but are calling for “clarification and commitment” from the Government on a number of “outstanding issues” from the Government before deciding whether to give their seal of approval to the multi-billion pound covenant.
The North East Combined Authority has set out a list of these issues ahead of further talks with the Government and has delayed making a final decision until May.
Newcastle Council’s leader Nick Forbes, whose council has endorsed the deal, said at a meeting of the authority’s leadership board: “None of us would have had this deal as a starting point, but it is important that we take this first step.”
Helen Golightly, North East Local Enterprise Partnership’s chief operating officer, said the meeting “underlined the region’s continued support for devolution”.
She said: “There are still matters where the local authorities feel they need more clarification from Government. The North East LEP remains fully supportive of the devolution process.”
She added: “Devolving powers will give us more opportunity to help drive the economic growth our region needs to contribute our full worth to the UK economy.”
Outstanding issues include a lack of certainty over £30m a year funding over 30 years and the need to “rural proof” investment to ensure rural areas are not left behind. The councils are also awaiting confirmation on how the Government plans to devolve funding for sustainable transport. Leaders also want further commitments to ensure the North East is not put at a financial disadvantage in relation to Scotland.
Jeremy Middleton, North East LEP board member and a mayoral candidate for the region, said the North East Combined Authority’s politicians were “holding the region back”.
He said: “This delay means there is a very real risk that the North East will be left behind again.”
A Government spokesman said: “The Government is making huge progress towards rebalancing Britain’s economy and empowering local areas through the devolution of powers and resources away from Whitehall.
“This is a bottom up process and if any local authority in the end decides it no longer wants to be part of it, then we will continue to work with those local partners who do, in order to make this historic opportunity in for the North East a reality.”
An allegedly corrupt academy school doesn’t fail – it is “re-brokered”
“An academy chain responsible for five secondary schools that was praised by David Cameron and Michael Gove is to be stripped of all its schools, according to sources close to the Department for Education (DfE).
The Perry Beeches academy trust is to have its five academies and free schools in Birmingham handed over to a new academy trust following a critical financial investigation.
A report by the Education Funding Agency (EFA), published before Easter, showed financial shortcomings at Perry Beeches, including third-party payments made to the chief executive, Liam Nolan, on top of his £120,000 salary as executive headteacher. The EFA’s call for urgent action triggered an official notice from the DfE, which detailed “serious concerns about financial management, control and governance” at the trust.
The five Perry Beeches schools are expected be “rebrokered” by the DfE and pass to a new chain, the West Midlands academies trust, which is headed by David Kershaw, a Labour cabinet member of Coventry council.
A Whitehall source said: “This shows the academy system is working, with the EFA identifying issues and regional schools commissioners intervening and rebrokering effectively, as part of a robust system of oversight.”
Perry Beeches declined to respond to requests for comment through its PR agency. However, the agency forwarded a comment from Nolan, who said: “I do not know who is brokering this deal. This would be done by the directors of the academy trust. I am an employee and won’t be involved in that brokering.”
For Nolan, the financial unravelling of the trust may overshadow his record as a successful headteacher. From 2007, he transformed the first Perry Beeches academy in inner-city Birmingham and won outstanding judgments from Ofsted.
Nolan’s recipe of hard work and improved results was as popular with ministers as with parents. “Parents want a structured, organised, disciplined education for their children. It is happening in the very best independent and the very best grammar schools. Why shouldn’t it be open to children from normal comprehensive schools?” Nolan said in a DfE publicity video.
Nolan embraced the free school reforms introduced by the Conservatives, although he is personally a vocal Labour supporter. Gove returned the compliment, telling the 2012 Conservative party conference: “The two best schools in Birmingham are Perry Beeches I and Perry Beeches II.”
The demise of Perry Beeches is badly timed for the government as it tries to win public support for a huge expansion of academy trust-run school networks. An education white paper launched after the budget proposed taking all 17,000 schools from local authority control and turning them into academies.
The investigation by the EFA, the DfE arm responsible for financial oversight of academies, took six months after it first received evidence from a whistleblower in September last year.
Lucy Powell, the shadow education secretary, said the catalogue of events “should ring alarm bells” over the government’s regulation of multi-academy trusts. “This decision raises serious questions about accountability and financial management of academy chains and ministers’ ability to police the system they have created,” Powell said.
“Parents and local communities will be deeply worried that this government has failed to put in place the appropriate checks over academy chain funding decisions, prioritising converting schools into academies over school standards and the protection of public money.”
The DfE would not publicly discuss the move, though a spokesperson said: “We are currently working with Perry Beeches academy trust to ensure it addresses concerns raised and this remains our priority.”
The prime minister opened one of Perry Beeches’ new free schools in 2013, when he praised the “brilliant team” at the trust. In 2012 Nolan addressed the Conservative party conference and appeared on stage with Gove, then the education secretary, who described Nolan as “wonderful”.
Last year, Gove’s successor Nicky Morgan told school leaders that Perry Beeches was evidence that by “working together through multi-academy trusts, schools can achieve truly extraordinary outcomes”.
The EFA investigation of Perry Beeches uncovered irregularities including nearly £1.3m in payments without contracts to a third-party supplier, Nexus. That company also subcontracted to a company named Liam Nolan Ltd, paying Nolan a second salary for his role as chief executive and accounting officer of the trust.
Evidence confirms that the accounting officer of Perry Beeches multi-academy trust is being paid for his services as the chief executive officer (CEO) through Nexus and then Liam Nolan Ltd, in addition to his salary as executive headteacher,” the EFA report said.
The report concluded that “the academy paid Nexus £72,000 including VAT in 2013-14 and £88,800 plus VAT in 2014-15 for the CEO role”, in contravention of academies’ financial rules and Treasury guidelines.
A separate report by the EFA found that eligibility for more than £2.5m worth of free school meal (FSM) funding could not be checked because the relevant records to 2015 were deleted by the trust. “The trust has breached the academies financial handbook by failing to retain any form of FSM eligibility evidence for a period of six years,” the EFA concluded.
After the EFA reports were published last week, Nolan told the TES that he was stepping down as the trust’s chief executive and would take a pay cut as executive head.
Nuclear energy: small is good, Hinkley C … so yesterday!
“Nuclear reactors may be about to shrink before our eyes.
After decades of building giant reactors in domes big enough to swallow a cathedral, nuclear engineers are thinking small.
They believe part of the solution to the energy crisis will come from factory-built mini-reactors, just 23m (75ft) long, delivered to the site on the back of a lorry.
Fans of small modular reactors (SMRs) say they will avoid the problems of delay and cost over-run that has beset traditional reactors.
Most importantly, they say, “mini-nukes” as small as a tenth the size of a conventional reactor would be much easier to finance.
Financial concerns
Finance has become the biggest obstacle to new nuclear plants.
The UK is locked in nuclear paralysis because EDF hasn’t yet confirmed the funding for the planned Hinkley C nuclear power plant – despite the backing of two of the world’s richest governments, France and China.
Footloose investors scanning the world for money-making opportunities tend to turn away when they see a nuclear reactor taking years to build, fraught with technical and political risk.
Solar and wind energy offer much more predictable returns in a fraction of the pay-back time.
But SMR fans say mini-nukes as small as 50 megawatts (MW) could change that. They suggest it’s as simple as placing your order and waiting for a reactor to turn up. Then plug and play – and wait to get your money back.
If you want large-scale power, just line up a dozen SMRs side by side. It’s a bit more complicated than that, of course, but potential offered by this technology is exciting governments worldwide.
In his most recent Budget, the Chancellor George Osborne announced a competition for the design of small modular reactors for use in the UK.”
Cabinet Agenda – 5.30 p.m. Knowle, 6 April 2016 – a meaty mix of relocation and devolution WITH NO MEANINGFUL COSTINGS WHATSOEVER
144 pages
Minutes take up the first 31 pages
Relocation – pages 32-49
“This update is to advise on progress of the relocation plans and seek Cabinet agreement to further key actions”.
Appendix 1 – Floor plans Honiton HQ and Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment
Appendix 2 – Pegasus Life plan for Knowle Site buildings footprint
Appendix 3 – Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey results summary
RECOMENDATIONS;
“Knowle Site:
1. Note that Pegasus Life Ltd following public consultation exercises will be submitting its application for development of the Knowle site . The projected likely date of consideration of the application is July 2016
2.Note that Sidmouth Town Council has responded positively to the Deputy Chief Executive ‘s formal proposal to transfer the remaining Knowle Park to Town Council ownership together with a commuted sum and negotiations continue Honiton Heathpark
3. Note that preparations are underway by the design team to submit a planning application for new build Council offices at
Heathpark with a view to Planning Committee consideration in September 2016
4. Note that the new HQ design is moving from concept to detailed design of space allocations for desks, meeting spaces, storage, reception area, Chamber, member area, services and external works
5. Note that construction is planned to commence in November 2016 for a period of up to 12 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works with occupation of the new HQ targeted for February 2018
6. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive has again met with businesses and staff at the East Devon Business Centre to discuss and advise on project progress Exmouth Town Hall
7. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive and design team have met with tenants of Exmouth Town Hall to discuss their needs,
concerns and expectations regarding the refurbishment of the building and its impact on their operations including any disruption or temporary displacement
8. Note that the Council has issued Section 25 notices to end the tenancies of Town Hall tenants to be followed by negotiation of
new tenancies
9. Note that refurbishment is planned to commence in Autumn 2016 and last between 8 – 10 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works.
Other
10. That Cabinet approve the use of £47,040 of transformation funds for the additional scope required within the Electronic
Document Management System.
11. Note that the Council has appointed Interserve to provide the Pre Construction Advisory role through a two stage
competitive tender process based upon the CFSW Framework. As part of the second stage tender process, Interserve will be
asked to provide their firm fixed price tender for the Project Works later this Year. If in the event the received tender is not
acceptable a further tendering process will be carried out.
12. Note that there continues to be ongoing detailed engagement with staff and tenants regarding space allocation, twin site
facilities, team locations, internal design, fit out and operational requirements
13. Note that Members have received a presentation on new offices design and layout. Further presentations and discussion will be arranged as the project moves forward
14. Agree SMT’s decision to locate Housing Services in the main as well as availability of other front facing provision (Benefits,
Environmental Health, Planning) on the basis of the findings of the Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey with
residents (attached at Appendix 3)
15. Note the successful recruitment of a Relocation Facilities Manager post to prepare and oversee the physical relocation of staff and resources”
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF BUMPH ABOUT WHAT AN EXCELLENT IDEA RELOCATION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …
Devolution – pages 50 – 92
Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf
“To update members on progress of the Devolution Prospectus”
Appendix 1 – Governance Workshop Notes
Appendix 2 – Governance Workshop slides
Appendix 3 – Briefing key messages
Appendix 4 – HoSW Prospectus for Productivity presentation
Appendix 5 – HoSW Productivity Plan Workshop Meeting notes
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF SLIDES ALL SHOWING WHAT A WONDERFUL THING DEVOLUTION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …
AND ENDING WITH THIS WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF ALMOST TOTALLY MEANINGLESS LEP JARGON:
“Conclusions and next steps
The key step was felt to be the development of a vision and criteria to drive the development of the productivity plan and the
work streams within the devolution prospectus. Building on the 6 golden opportunities exploring
a) what will move us forward rapidly
b) what will stop us moving backwards
Need this vision to be developed and agreed by our Leaders before we do too much more work within the theme areas.
Recognise that we need to keep the pace.
Twin track process:
The Productivity Plan being the longer term vision of transformation irrespective of what devolution deal we obtain. It will be an overarching plan that will drive ambition for the area.
Devolution – will work rapidly with government to agree a Heads of Terms similar to the East Anglia devolution
model and push for an early deal.
We could commission our universities to undertake some research to explore the options for transformational change in our area to inform the development.
Action:
The PMO will be asked to develop a Next Steps document for comment on the development of the vision, criteria, and the framework and resources required to deliver a shared plan.”
Devolution: the next 5 years – councillors should be ashamed of themselves for signing us up with no consultation
House of Commons
Communities and Local Government Committee
Devolution: the next five years and beyond. First Report of Session 2015–16 25 Jan 2016
Extracts
Devolution Objectives (Conclusion para 21)
“As set out above, our witnesses gave us many important and ambitious reasons for pursuing devolution, particularly so for health devolution. However, with the exception of increasing economic growth, we are not certain whether these are intended to be the measurable objectives of devolution and are not convinced that the Government itself is any clearer. We are also not satisfied that the Government has considered and identified how to measure the success of a devolution deal once in place.”
The Approach to Devolution (from para 24 and 25)
“….the current approach to devolution in England is overtly one of deal-making, which can be characterised as negotiations behind closed doors between central government and representatives of local authorities….
……Indeed, one of the consequences of deal-making is that devolution does not happen in a uniform manner; deals have so far been agreed with seven city regions and with Cornwall. Professor Pike described it as “very ad hoc” and “piecemeal”…..”
On Public Engagement (from para 51 and 52)
“We have been struck by the lack of discussion and consultation with the public in areas which have proposed, negotiated and agreed devolution deals.
At the question and answer session we held with residents during our visit to Greater Manchester, the vast majority of contributions, often made in angry tones, arose from the perceived lack of efforts by the combined authority to engage the public about the deal relating to their local area.
While many valid points were made, we note that attendees, having elected to attend the session, were not necessarily representative of all Greater Manchester residents who are likely to be less aware of devolution.
We were told that there had been a “complete, utter and total lack of democratic engagement”, “insufficient information” and that most people did not understand what Devo Manc was all about.
When we raised this with our Greater Manchester witnesses, Cllr Kieran Quinn, the Leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, said he fully accepted there could have been more transparency. Cllr Sue Jeffrey, the Leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, told us that Tees Valley had not consulted the public before signing up to a deal and Cllr Alan Rhodes, Leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, said they were talking about the deal in the media and would hold a public consultation once it was agreed.
…..Cllr Quinn reasoned that, as the deal was bringing new powers to local people, not taking them away, limited public engagement could be excused……….
Conclusion (para 56)
“We think it is too late to engage the public only once a deal has been agreed. While it is reasonable that the actual negotiations are not open to the public, steps should be taken to inject more openness into the process by publishing on the relevant authorities’ websites:
• Devolution proposals and the Government’s counter-offers, within a reasonable time of them being made;
• An outline of what is being negotiated; and
• Drafts of the deal, and the text of the final deal.
The Government should also publish the criteria it uses to assess and agree proposals so local areas can refer to these when drawing up their devolution bid. A similar level of transparency should continue to be maintained once the deal has been agreed.”
Scrutiny (Conclusion para 77)
“As the DCLG says, the overview and scrutiny requirements in the Bill are an initial framework to be used as a basis for more robust provisions, which we believe have a role in fostering public confidence in the new arrangements, as well as balancing vested interests. These should be developed to suit the characteristics of the local areas as a result of deliberate efforts to hold active discussions at local level, with residents involved in designing new and more open methods of scrutiny.
Local areas need to give active consideration to how the mayor will work with the council leaders and how s/he will be held to account. Although the elected mayor is intended to be a ‘first among equals’, s/he may soon establish, or already have, a profile and position which makes this balance difficult to achieve.”
Rules – what rules?
From a story in today’s Daily Telegraph about David Cameron having hissy fits about Brexit Cabinet ministers:
“Earlier this year the Prime Minister lifted “collective responsibility” rules for members of the Government, meaning that they are able to campaign on both sides of the EU argument.”
Isn’t it interesting that, when it is expedient, rules cannot only be bent but ignored.
How often have we heard, at EDDC, that something cannot be done (particularly public speaking) because it is “against the rules” or “against standing orders”. Yet one of the biggest rules (Cabinet collective responsibility) can simply be “suspended” at any time.
Devolution confusion
Unfortunately, the Committee did not tackle the situation where a Local Enterprise Partnership has greater powers than the Mayor. Though, of course, it is likely that one of the politicians currently on the LEP will become the devolved Mayor and will serve himself or herself AND the LEP as well as their own councils and us the common people!
But what a spanner could be thrown in the works if an Independent stood and won!
“Potential for confusion
…
78. From what we have seen and heard, we are very concerned that the public will not understand who will be responsible for what in their local area.
The Devolution Bill makes a distinction between the powers of the mayor and those of the combined authority which translates into the mayor and the combined authority being responsible for different services.
For example, in Greater Manchester, the interim mayor is responsible for transport, but not health, which is within Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s remit.
Some witnesses argued that this is not a problem in London where the Mayor of London’s responsibilities differ from those of the London Boroughs. But Alexandra Jones, the Chief Executive of the Centre for Cities, said this will need to be tackled as part of the “public education programme” around devolution and Professor Copus said that “the mayor, counties and the districts have to be prepared to point people in the right direction”.
When we put our concerns to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, he said that it would be “for that mayor to make very clear the platform on which they stand and the things they are doing in office”.
More alarm bells on devolution – from Parliament
The Government has announced a ‘devolution revolution’, transferring powers and opportunities to local government through a series of ‘devolution deals’.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill gives statutory authority to deals and enables some of the specific reforms the Government wishes to make, such as introducing directly-elected mayors for combined authorities. This inquiry set out to examine the contents of the Bill and, in particular, whether Greater Manchester’s deal is a model for other areas, but its scope quickly widened to a review of the way in which devolution in England is proceeding.
We strongly support the principle of devolution. We welcome the fact that, at the start of this new Parliament, it occupies such a prominent position on the Government’s agenda. We acknowledge the personal contribution of Greg Clark, whose support and involvement since 2010 has been key in driving devolution. We expect to see this commitment continue, and for it to be shared by an increasing number of Departments, over the next four and a half years.
We are acutely aware that all deals are at an early stage and need time to bed in, and that many devolution bids are still to be negotiated. We therefore expect to review progress by the end of this Parliament and at regular intervals thereafter. Although it was not the focus of this inquiry, in line with our predecessors, we will continue to press for fiscal devolution: our next inquiry will look at the plans to allow local authorities to retain 100 per cent of business rates, and we will review the progress made on fiscal devolution.
We have identified various aspects of the current approach that we recommend are refined and improved now. Otherwise, the policy risks being rushed and appearing driven by a purely political timetable. We see a role for scrutiny by select committees of the secondary legislation enacting deals and the Government’s annual report on devolution, required by the Bill.
We have found a significant lack of public consultation and engagement at all stages in the devolution process. People are keen to be involved; our public session in Greater Manchester highlighted residents’ strong appetite to be included and consulted. The public should be engaged in the preparation of devolution proposals, insofar as possible during the negotiations and once the results of a deal have begun to make an impact, and communicated to throughout the process. This is particularly the case for health devolution where the systems in place are complex, changes are consequently more difficult to understand and the public’s response is likely to be more emotional.
We also believe that the Government’s approach to devolution in practice has lacked rigour as to process: there are no clear, measurable objectives for devolution, the timetable is rushed and efforts are not being made to inject openness or transparency into the deal negotiations. We suggest various ways in which proper process can be ensured; for example, with an agreed timetable for the negotiation and agreement of a deal.
Once deals are up and running, there will be a complex division of responsibility – between local authorities, the combined authority and, in some places, the directly-elected mayor— which will not necessarily be apparent to the public. Responsibility needs to be determined in a way that makes sense to the public, and consideration of these issues should be a significant part of the deal-making process with the division of responsibilities clearly spelled out. We received no clear explanation as to how accountability under health devolution will work and have recommended that the Government revisits this issue. There is a need for a clear articulation of how health devolution will work.
We strongly believe that areas should be able to acquire further devolved powers over time. Where an area has asked for particular devolved powers but was refused, those powers should be available to it if they are given to other similar areas at a later date.
Our ambition is that, by the end of this Parliament, the Government and local authorities will reach the position of ‘devoylution by right’, with the Government having announced a package of powers that will be on o er to local government. is would be a starting point for even more ambitious and wide-ranging future deals and possibly a more comprehensive package of devolved measures agreed between Government and local government as a whole.”
Summary taken from:
Devolution: the next five years and beyond
First Report of Session 2015–16
Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 January 2016
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/369.pdf
The power of social media
“When George Osborne delivered his Budget on 16 March, he announced that
he would cut £4.4 billion from Personal Independence Payments (PIP).
However, within less than 48 hours (and before the resignation of Iain
Duncan Smith) he withdrew the proposal, which he has since described as
a “mistake”.
Such a swift u-turn on such a major Budget measure is without precedent
in living memory. This humiliation for Osborne follows last years slow
motion retreat on tax credits. It happened because enough Tory MPs let
Osborne know that they would vote against the PIP cuts to make him
realise that if he pressed on, he would lose the parliamentary vote and
face an even greater humiliation. And in significant part, the actions
of those Tory MPs were due to Twitter.
PIP is a benefit that helps people with some of the extra costs caused
by long-term ill-health or a physical or mental disability. It is
designed to help with such things as preparing food, washing, getting
dressed, communicating with other people and with mobility. If the
proposal had become law more than half a million people would have faced
cuts of up to £150 per week.
Osborne had reasons to feel confident that the cuts to PIP would be
voted through without much fuss, except among those who “do not vote
Tory anyway” – to borrow a phrase used by IDS.
The PIP cuts, explicitly said to be in order to fund tax-cuts, had been
trailed in the press at the weekend before the Budget, without much
reaction to concern Osborne.
Above all, only a couple of weeks previously, Tory MPs had loyally
supported the government to override defeats in the Lords to force
through a reduction of £30 per week for sick and disabled people
receiving Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
The ESA cuts apply to sick and disabled people who are not considered
fit for work but are considered fit for activities such as training to
prepare them for work. The reason why they had been receiving £30 more
per week than other claimants was that, due to their illness or
disability, it was recognised they would incur additional costs to help
them in their task of preparing for work.
The ESA cut had gone through in the teeth of powerfully expressed
outrage by sick and disabled people, disability charities, members of
the Lords, Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith (Labour’s shadow DWP) and others.
It barely registered, however, in the billionaire-owned press or the
flagship BBC news programmes, Today and the news bulletins.
Only three Tory MPs defied the party whip and voted against the cut to
ESA.
So, Osborne would have felt confident about passing the cuts to PIP.
The evening after the Budget and the next day, the press and the BBC
showed as little interest in PIP as they had to ESA. Given the number of
people affected and the sums involved, the Today programme might have
given airtime to a disabled person who would be personally affected by
the PIP cuts. There was nothing like that. For the mainstream media, the
Budget story was the Sugar Tax.
But the agenda was different – and far more democratic – on Twitter
(and other social media).
For those who do not know, on Twitter, anybody can set up a Twitter
account and then they can send out their own messages (called tweets)
and they can receive the tweets of anyone else they decide to follow.
Almost all MPs have a Twitter account.
On the evening after the Budget, a succession of well-designed tweets
started to appear on Twitter. Each one featured a picture of one of the
Tory MPs who had forced through the £30 cut to ESA , together with their
constituency and any other relevant information, such as their expenses
claims and whether they were associated with disability charities. In
some of the pictures the MP was seen posing with disabled constituents.
The text varied but typically it said “XX MP claims to care about the
sick and disabled but not enough to stop them voting to force through a
£30 per week cut for sick and disabled people on ESA”.
Most of these Tweets were retweeted hundreds if not thousands of times.
Each time that happened the MP named would receive a copy. The tweets
would soon be picked up by people in their constituency.
There were complaints. One Tory MP allegedly threatened legal action.
Some people objected to the “trolling” of MPs. The tweets, of course,
were simply repeating facts already in the public domain. All these
nonsense objections were retweeted in their turn.
Osborne had first described the tax-credit and the PIP cuts as
“necessary”, but he later conceded, when forced to drop them, that they
were not necessary at all but political choices.
Twitter highlighted how MPs had passed one shameful, unnecessary
measure, attacking the sick and disabled, and were on the brink of
passing another.
Twitter did what the press and the BBC had conspicuously failed to do.
It performed a democratic service.
Tory MPs felt the democratic heat. Osborne did the counting of votes and
withdrew the PIP cut.
The Twitter campaign will continue to try and have the ESA cut withdrawn
too.”
http://tomdlondon.blogspot.com/2016/03/how-twitter-helped-force-osborne
And what do you know – EDF shoulders part of Chinese investment risk
“French utility EDF (EDF.PA) has agreed to shoulder part of Chinese partner CGN’s financial risks should there be delays or cost overruns in the Hinkley Point nuclear project in Britain, weekly Le Journal du Dimanche reported.
The newspaper cites a note by former chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal to the EDF board’s audit committee regarding the 18 billion pound project.
The notes says in the case of five-billion-euro cost overrun, EDF would have to finance 80 percent of it, despite having a 66.5 percent stake in the project.
In case of a six-month delay, state-controlled EDF would have to refund several hundred million euros of CGN’s initial investment.
If the Austrian government is successful in its complaint to the European Commission over what it regards as illegal state aid for the project, EDF would have to pay CGN 1.6 billion euros.
The newspaper also reported that CGN has a bigger say in the governance of the Hinkley Point project, including veto rights on any dividend payments, accounting, budget and board member pay. EDF was not available for immediate comment.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-edf-britain-nuclear-idUKKCN0WT09V
All roads lead to Hinkley C?
One of the great mysteries of the HotSW LEP’s devolution plans is the fact that massive development is planned for Exeter/East Devon, but they don’t want to see the A303 dualled between Honiton and Broadway/Ilminster.
We are proposing a huge increase in employment and population, but the LEP is campaigning to keep the road single carriageway. It really is most odd that Devon County Council and the LEP don’t want to see the road dualled, despite ambitions for enormous growth.
Buy-to-let landlords find loophole to avoid tax changes
Another story in the Sunday Telegraph Business section is that buy-to-let landlords (who control properties all over East Devon, particularly Cranbrook) have realised that to avoid extra taxes announced last year all they have to do is incorporate companies and take advantage of the reduced corporation tax and other opportunities.
Although there are costs to this route, and they mostly benefit higher tax band ps, there are worthwhile tax advantages for anyone who owns 10 or more properties.
In any case, with all such landlords, any increased costs will be passed on to increased rents.
City regulators jittery about Chinese investors – watch out LEP!
The Sunday Telegraph Business has a front page story thaT deals with Chinese investors have been blocked by regulators world-wide “amid growing doubts over their ability to see through a deal”. Deals for Chinese investors to buy merchant bank Kleinwort Benson and London City Airport have been abandoned recently.
Although most newspaper articles talk about the French (EDF) investment in the Hinkley C nuclear power station, 25% of the investment is to come from the Chinese. No deal has yet been signed, as it is contingent on the EDF deal being underwritten by the French government.
Add to that the fears that Brexit might cause knock-on problems for Hinkley C and, in the words of Laurel and Hardy:
“That’s another fine mess you’ve got me into, Stanley”!
