Five councils partnership will “..break even, at best”

At full council on 18th July 2018, the Leader of the council, Cllr Roger Cox, reported that the outsourcing arrangements his administration entered into in order to save £9 million over the  life of the contract, will now “break even at best”. 

See his full statement on the Vale website, here:  http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/news/2018/2018-07/council-leaders-statement

That wording, “break even at best” means most likely it will actually cost our council money over the long term. Let me emphasise that. The outsourcing scheme brought in by the Tory administration in 2016 will not save us any money at all, and in fact will likely cost us money over the 9 years of the contract. 

He led off with this, as if it were the MAIN THING:

“I am pleased to say that the insourcing of services from VINCI and the establishment of a direct relationship with Indigo for our Parking Service delivery has gone exceptionally well.”

What he might have said was that the costs of the Vinci contract exceeded the baseline costs from when we did it ourselves, so we brought those services back in house. The cost of that isn’t yet known, but in my opinion is bound to be high; we’ll learn of the details in the financial reporting due in September.

He followed with this:

“I am pleased that Capita have committed to work with us to achieve this and that they support the benefits of the positive and truthful approach our officers have taken…” 

I interpret this as a sad attempt to find something positive in this situation: “Well, at least they’re willing to work with us and officers are telling the truth…” A low bar, in my opinion.

This is the MAIN THING, as far as I’m concerned (my emphasis):

“I have specifically sought out assurance from the Chief Executive and our Section 151 Officer regarding the original decision-making process and the information that was made available to members, staff and residents at that time. Based on this, I am satisfied that the original decisions taken by members were appropriate based on the information made available to them at that time. I think all councillors will agree that we are fortunate that our current officers call a spade a spade and have committed themselves to resolving the challenges we face and that we are better informed regarding the detail of the 5Cs contract now than at any other time. However, based on the information that was available to us at the time, I do not believe members made a decision that was illogical, inappropriate or unreasonable.“

By his reference to ‘current officers’, he seems to be saying he holds previous officers accountable for not providing sufficient information to make an informed decision. OK, if Cabinet had known better, they would have done better. Fair enough.

But not GOOD enough.

In fact, poor decisions taken by this Tory administration were highlighted by external auditors Ernst & Young in their 2017 report to Council, when they said, “…Councils had not put in place proper arrangements to allow them to make informed decisions…” . Cllr Cox refers to the auditors’ findings in his report (in the link above, see the penultimate paragraph).

A useful learning point would be to assess what led to this situation, where Cabinet didn’t have the information they needed. Did Cabinet ever ask officers for a report on the reasons why NOT to do this outsourcing contract? I see nothing that tells me they did. What practices can be put into place to be sure Council doesn’t make this same mistake again?

Since the time when this outsourcing decision was taken in 2016, all the key decision makers have stepped down – both councils’ Leaders and the then Chief Executive and main strategic director for this work.

I am disappointed there wasn’t even the smallest whiff of apology in the council leader’s words or his tone. This project has gone so wrong, caused suffering to staff, and cost us a lot of money. He could have said “Sorry”.

 

 

 

 

 

VAT on ebooks

I wrote a letter to my MEP, Catherine Bearder. (It’s the first time I’ve done that!)

In it, I asked, “Dear Catherine.

“I wonder if you can help me understand why the EU requires nations to charge VAT on ebooks, but paper books are VAT free. That doesn’t seem fair. And it’s not immediately clear what the justification is?”

She (well, her staff) replied today. She says:

“Dear Ms Hallett,

“Thank you for your email about VAT on books and ebooks.

“I have considerable sympathy for the sentiments in your email, I think books and education are of fundamental importance to our society. As part of its 2016 Work Programme, the European Commission announced that it will look at VAT and include any changes in a revision of the VAT Directive, and the European Parliament has voted to allow individual EU countries to reduce the rate of VAT on e-books to match the rate on printed books.

“Therefore, the ability for Member States to treat ebooks the same as traditional books is on its way.

“I hope you find this response helpful and supportive. If you feel I can be of any further help on any European matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

“Yours sincerely,

“Catherine Bearder MEP”

Housing Completions and Commitments

Vale is committed to building 22,760 new homes by Mar 2031. (Top row in photo.)

Adding together all completed new houses, plus commitments, plus those allocated in both parts of our Local Plan, plus expected other housing not yet known about or planned for, totals 26,359. (Bottom row in photo.)

We could eliminate all further Allocations proposed in LPP2 (3420) and still meet our commitment.

Why on earth do Vale planners and Tory administration propose further Allocations at all in LPP2, let alone in the Green Belt? We are asking that question.

Oddly, some of the developers agree. They say they can’t deliver them. It’s too much.

Local Plan Part 2 – Examination in Public starts today

This week I’ll be taking part in the inspector’s public examination of Local Plan Part 2. One of the main objectives of LPP2 is to provide policy for how Vale will meet its share of Oxford’s unmet need.

I oppose the plan for one basic reason: the evidence used to underpin LPP2 is out of date and known to be false. It’s arguable that Oxford HAS no needs it cannot meet for itself.

Government recently consulted on a new algorithm to define the number of houses an area needs, its Objectively Assessed Need (OAN). Using this new calculation Vale, and Oxford, have a much lower OAN than the old SHMA dictated. In fact, it’s likely that the new, lower OAN means Oxford can meet its own need without help from Vale.

Green Belt land and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are protected from development except in the case of “exceptional circumstances”. Once open spaces are turned into urban sprawl, they are gone forever. Oxfordshire’s extreme need for housing was used in 2016 as justification for large developments in Vale’s open spaces.

Now we know that Govt considers the old OANs for Oxfordshire to have been unnecessarily high. That means several things.

LPP1, which placed some strategic housing sites on Green Belt land, was based on evidence now known to be false. (As an aside, when these large SHMA figures were introduced, Vale councillors tried to scrutinise how such large figures were derived. We were told that information was proprietary and not available to study.) Liberal Democrats across the county argued that the SHMA produced figures that were unrealistically high, which would crowd the countryside with more housing than was needed. Turns out we were right.

So the too-high SHMA led to strategic sites in the Green Belt in my area in the LPP1 adopted in 2016. It’s probably too late to save them. There are better sites, but the Green Belt sites are already underway.

The new calculations cut significantly the OAN in Vale. That leads to the situation where Vale has inappropriately approved development in the Oxford Green Belt.

Oxford’s OAN is also greatly reduced, to the point where Vale doesn’t need to help. LPP1 would fully meet all Vale’s housing needs, and nothing further is needed in Vale for Oxford Housing.

But then there’s Dalton Barracks. It’s a military base in the Vale’s part of the Green Belt, soon to be closed. It is therefore available for many hundreds of homes, provided there are exceptional circumstances. Evidence does not support the claim for exceptional circumstances. But still, it is brownfield land, more suitable for new housing developments than the Green Belt sites already allocated in Sunningwell, Radley and Kennington.

What a mess.

In my opinion, a plan that makes permanent changes to the city, towns, villages and countryside cannot be considered sound when it is based on evidence known to be false.

I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues called for Vale to pause and reassess. Tories voted against that. They want to move forward with a reckless plan to take up limited open spaces with more houses, which will be too expensive for local people to rent or buy, and that aren’t really needed anyway, all based on evidence they know to be outdated and false.

Sound familiar?

So this week I’ll be participating in the Local Plan Examination in Public.

Growth Board – my governance questions

I attended my first Growth Board meeting on 11 June 18, which had many more people and much less discussion than I expected. I guess they discuss everything ahead of time, in private, so there’s no business to discuss at the actual public meeting. All the council leaders had something to say to contribute, except for the Leader of the Vale, Cllr Roger Cox. I’m always  disappointed when my representative has nothing to contribute.

I submitted my question ahead of time, as required. Here’s what I asked:

1.    Question from Cllr Debby Hallett, Chairman of Scrutiny Vale of White Horse District Council
 
The district and city councils have signed up to a deal with Government to provide a number of new houses that is significantly more than is needed (according to the housing minister). Growth Board says it needs effective scrutiny, yet as of this question’s deadline, there is no scrutiny committee appointed to scrutinise whether signing this agreement was a good idea, nor the work progressing now.
 
i.        Who is the member of the Growth Board responsible for ensuring good governance practices (including Scrutiny) are set up and operating as expected and providing the value we all think they should?
 
ii.      What steps are being taken, by whom, reporting how, to ensure good governance of this Growth Deal?
 
iii.    How will Growth Board balance the need to get things done and progress the work, with your responsibility to be accountable to the people of Oxfordshire, and to ensure your decisions benefit residents?
Here is the written reply I received:
Written Response
  i. Since its establishment in 2014, the responsibility for the scrutiny of any decisions made by the Growth Board has rested with the scrutiny arrangements in each of the six Oxfordshire councils that make up the Growth Board. Since this date several councils have taken up this option periodically. These arrangements reflected the fact that the Board has no Executive decision making powers of its own, save for those that are delegated to the council leaders in their capacity as that council’s Board representative.
ii. The decision by Government to rest the task of oversight of the delivery of the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal with the Growth Board highlighted a need to adopt appropriate new scrutiny arrangements and the partners committed to this as part of the Deal. We are now in the process of establishing this scrutiny regime and council partners have been asked and provided nominations to a Growth Board Scrutiny Panel. Once these are approved at today’s meeting, officers will be working with the nominees to set up the meetings, drawing up terms of reference etc. with a view to establishing a timetable of meetings as soon as possible.
iii. The Governance arrangements for the Housing and Growth Deal are designed to balance the need for delivery, as required by the Deal with the transparency and accountability required for all local authority work. 
  Cross partnership officer arrangements, up to and including Chief Executives will ensure a high quality output and this will be overseen at a detailed level by three Housing and Growth Deal Advisory Sub- groups, populated by councillors drawn from across the partnership, the Growth Board itself in its role as the strategic governing body and both the scrutiny arrangements for the Board set out earlier in the response and the complimentary [sic] scrutiny arrangements that each council has in place to examine the work of the Board.  The Board will review the effectiveness of these arrangements periodically to ensure they are fit for purpose.  
I had the opportunity to ask a supplementary question:
Supplementary question
How does the Growth Board see its responsibility to create good governance and ensure the scrutiny committee is functioning effectively? Who has responsibility for this? It is disappointing that four months after the Deal was signed this committee has not yet met.
And here is the reply:
Response
At this meeting the Growth Board are appointing and noting the membership of the Sub-Groups and Scrutiny Committee. After this the first meetings of these will be set up to agree terms of reference and functions. There is no requirement for a dedicated scrutiny committee for the Growth Board but we considered this necessary for good governance. We hope it will allow you to have a strong oversight of the Board’s work.

Today is 20th June, and no developments yet.

My mother used to tell me that if no one was responsible for something, it wouldn’t get done. Growth Board were unable to tell me who is responsible. Maybe, since the chairmanship is coming to SODC next, their leader, Cllr Jane Murphy, will be responsible.

 

I asked the Leader about impact of lack of staff

On 25th Jan 2018, Scrutiny hosted an Ask the Leader session, where Cllr Matthew Barber took on all comers. I had a question for him about the impact of his Cabinet’s decisions to cut back on senior staff.

I asked him, “Last year the external auditors found that Council decision makers had let too many managers leave the council without replacement, to the extent that we didn’t have enough people left to do the required work of council. I’ve personally heard of a few service areas that had delays in delivering their planned work for the last two years or so due to lack of resources. For example, Environmental Health team was mentioned in full council, and the Communications team have delayed their Communications Strategy work. Which other service areas are suffering in performance due to lack of resources? What’s being done to remedy this situation?”

Cllr Barber replied that the question related to two separate issues, capacity at senior management level and financial resources. With regard to the former, it was recognised some time ago that there was a lack of capacity at senior management level. Regrettably, the required management restructure had been delayed for reasons that councillors were aware but was now in progress and would result in an increased number of heads of service. With regard to the latter, the council continued to perform well given its limited resources and was allocating increased funding for additional posts.

Seems to me he didn’t really answer my questions. He dodged the issue that he was responsible for the lack of senior managers. Now, with the value of hindsight, we realise he was preparing to step down from his role as Leader of the Council, to pursue new opportunities. He left in May 2018.

I asked the Leader about risk of Capita collapse

On the 25th Jan 2018 Scrutiny hosted an Ask the Leader session, where Cllr Matthew Barber took on all comers. I had a question for him about Capita.

“In the aftermath of the Carillion collapse, I’ve been looking into the wider issue of outsourcing public services as a decision and the associated risks. Whenever a decision is made to outsource public services to an external provider, we outsource the work but not the responsibility. It is still Vale that must meet payroll, manage HR issues, keep the IT systems working, replace batteries in officers’ mobile telephones, and repair or replace
wobbly tables in our offices. I see places where performance is falling short, yet the KPIs are still green.

“When Cabinet decided to outsource this work, who at Vale took on the responsibility of managing the contracts with the outsourcing companies to ensure we were still delivering our services? What issues have arisen in contract management and what’s been the cost of that? For example, how much have we had to spend on retained officers’ work in keeping the Capita KPIs green? And now that we see what happens when a company goes bust, what sort of contingency plans have council developed us to protect us in the event of a Capita collapse?”

Cllr Barber replied that the council had outsourced many contracts most of which were working well. However, it was sensible to have plans in place in the event of the potential collapse of any of these contracts. A joint client team operated across the Five Councils’ Partnership and the client relationship director had delegated authority to act for each of the partner councils in managing the performance of the contractors. Most of the operational problems with the Capita contract had occurred in the transformation activities in HR and IT rather than in services operating on a “business as usual” basis. There were rectification plans (within the provisions of the contract and at no cost to the council) in those areas where the required service standards had not been achieved.

That didn’t answer my questions, did it?

Since that time, of course, Capita shares have collapsed, several areas of their performance have been poor, and in May 2018 Cllr Barber stepped down as Leader of the Council to pursue other opportunities.

Licenses to harm badger setts and clans

I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Natural England. I asked them to provide information about requests they’ve received from development sites in Vale for permission to damage, destroy, block or otherwise cause harm to or interfere with badger setts and clans.

Here is what I asked:

Dear Natural England,

Developers requesting planning permission are regularly told by our local planning authority that they need a license from Natural England to allow them damage, destroy, block or otherwise cause harm to or interfere with badger setts and clans.

Provide total number of such licenses in Vale of White Horse that were sought in the past 5 years. 
Provide a total of licenses that were granted in that time. 
Provide a list all such licenses that were refused in that time, and include enough information that we can understand the location and reasons for refusal.

If there are applications for such licenses that have another disposition other than refused or granted, please list them.

Regards, 
Cllr Debby Hallett

Natural England replied to me. They informed me that no licenses have been refused in the past 5 years. 

I think that perhaps this information calls for a reconsideration in how we use ‘harm to badgers’ as a reason to refuse in our objections to planning applications.

Earlier, I spoke with the environment officer at Vale, who explained to me that badgers are not endangered — there are lots of them. The act was put in place to prevent cruelty to badgers. That makes more understandable the frustration we experience when all development sites are granted license to damage or destroy setts or even clans. I don’t think it’s right, but now it is understandable. 

For more information on the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, see the RSPCA site here:  https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/wildlife/inthewild/badgers/law

 

Oxford’s sprawl needs to be halted

The Oxfordshire Growth Deal is where Govt gives us a bit of money in exchange for local authorities’ promises to build 100,000 new homes across the county. I was the only councillor in all of Oxfordshire to vote against the deal.

Here’s a view from a former strategic planner for the county. (From Oxford Times)