FlyTheNest

Local Enterprise Partnerships and previous NAO work...

Central government in England has sought for many years to stimulate economic growth and rebalance it between different regions. Key to the plans for local economic growth are (Local Enterprise Partnerships) LEPs. These are business-led partnerships between the private sector and local authorities. They were established to steer growth strategically in local communities following the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies in 2010.

The government awarded £7.3 billion to LEPs through the first two rounds of Growth Deals in 2014 and 2015. In early 2017, it announced that it would award a further £1.8 billion through a third round of Growth Deals. This brought the total allocation to £9.1 billion, with the remaining £2.9 billion of the Local Growth Fund being awarded via separate funds.

...since their formation in 2010 LEPs have taken on increased responsibility for significant amounts of central government funding. We also found that:

• LEPs were not as transparent to the public as we would expect, especially given that they are now responsible for significant amounts of taxpayers’ money;
• the Department had not tested the implementation of assurance frameworks; and
• some LEPs did not fully comply with the Department’s national framework requirements, for example, at the time of the report, 16% had not published a conflict of interest policy and 42% had not published a register of interests.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (the Department) has taken a ‘light touch’ approach to working with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) because its intention was to devolve funding decisions to local areas. The Local Enterprise Partnership National Assurance Framework (the national framework) is designed to be ‘light touch’ and the Department relies on practices and standards designed to ensure that LEPs spend their funding with regularity and propriety and that they achieve value for money.

...the framework does not set out how the accountable body and statutory officer should fulfil their roles in terms of the level of detail required. In addition, the national framework does not set out what a Section 151 officer should do if they have concerns about the way an LEP is operating, nor how they should escalate any concerns they may have.

The Department does not have the same intervention powers for LEPs as it does for local government. As LEPs are private bodies, the Department’s powers do not extend to them and so the government’s ability to respond to failure is limited. The government’s main sanction over LEPs is to put conditions on funding, or to withhold it.

Our remit under the National Audit Act 1983 (as amended) does not extend to scrutinising the activities of individual Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), but GCGP LEP has cooperated with this work.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... ership.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General
Department for Communities and Local Government

29 NOVEMBER 2017

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... ership.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:Just as the 1950-70 were dogmatic nationalizing years, we are now in the 'free market delivers all' dogma - my standard view is that we are handing massive amounts of taxpayer money to private companies (many paying no tax in the UK) of foreign Governments because of this dogma

The question is do they deliver value.....ie cost and quality......not just cost

Plus, is it right to outsource at all?

This is a bit subjective, but to me Probation and Prisons ought not to be outsourced at all.

Tricky. Both are now complete disasters, but to what extent is that cuts and to what extent outsourcing?

I strongly believe in whatever works. It is true that most reformers seemed to think that every problem could be solved by creating a market, but we're not really that crude any longer

Some outsourcing (eg road building) has always worked well. It depends. Without strong evidence one way or the other, my conservative instinct is to leave things alone.

Carillion, which has debts of about £1.5bn and a pension fund shortfall of almost £600m, is proposing that the banks swap their debts for majority equity stakes in the business.

But a more urgent sticking point, the Observer understands, is the need for a £300m cash injection to keep the business afloat. With the banks balking at stumping up more cash, there is speculation that the government may have to step in to guarantee Carillion’s short term future.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -carillion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, when the non-profit water advocacy group Food and Water Watch looked at average water rates charged by utilities in California, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York, it found that private utilities charged consumers “significantly higher water rates” than public ones did—as much as 50 percent more.

Willow904 wrote:I don't think any debate about private outsourcing of public services in the UK would be complete without looking at water. It would be at the top of my list, way before trains (I'd put buses before trains as well) in terms of looking at to renationalise:


http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/09/02 ... ing-water/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, when the non-profit water advocacy group Food and Water Watch looked at average water rates charged by utilities in California, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York, it found that private utilities charged consumers “significantly higher water rates” than public ones did—as much as 50 percent more.

With the lack of a competition element and complex financial arrangements to reduce tax/inflate payments to shareholders - privatised water seems to underperform public provision in a pretty stark and uniform manner. They charge more and invest less. I challenge anyone to find an actual benefit. Indeed, there is so little obvious benefit that only England, Chile and a few US cities have ever felt the need to privatise water.

Carillion crisis looms for government as time runs out for refinancing deal

Opposition parties demand to know why ministers such as Chris Grayling continued to hand contracts to failing contractor (Guardian)

PorFavor wrote:

Carillion crisis looms for government as time runs out for refinancing deal

Opposition parties demand to know why ministers such as Chris Grayling continued to hand contracts to failing contractor (Guardian)

With special thanks to Chris Grayling.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -carillion

frog222 wrote:

Willow904 wrote:I don't think any debate about private outsourcing of public services in the UK would be complete without looking at water. It would be at the top of my list, way before trains (I'd put buses before trains as well) in terms of looking at to renationalise:


http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/09/02 ... ing-water/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, when the non-profit water advocacy group Food and Water Watch looked at average water rates charged by utilities in California, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York, it found that private utilities charged consumers “significantly higher water rates” than public ones did—as much as 50 percent more.

With the lack of a competition element and complex financial arrangements to reduce tax/inflate payments to shareholders - privatised water seems to underperform public provision in a pretty stark and uniform manner. They charge more and invest less. I challenge anyone to find an actual benefit. Indeed, there is so little obvious benefit that only England, Chile and a few US cities have ever felt the need to privatise water.

Willow --- it's actually widespread in France and Germany for a start, thence the years' long movements to take it back into municipal/regional ownership !!

frog222 wrote:

Willow904 wrote:I don't think any debate about private outsourcing of public services in the UK would be complete without looking at water. It would be at the top of my list, way before trains (I'd put buses before trains as well) in terms of looking at to renationalise:


http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/09/02 ... ing-water/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, when the non-profit water advocacy group Food and Water Watch looked at average water rates charged by utilities in California, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York, it found that private utilities charged consumers “significantly higher water rates” than public ones did—as much as 50 percent more.

With the lack of a competition element and complex financial arrangements to reduce tax/inflate payments to shareholders - privatised water seems to underperform public provision in a pretty stark and uniform manner. They charge more and invest less. I challenge anyone to find an actual benefit. Indeed, there is so little obvious benefit that only England, Chile and a few US cities have ever felt the need to privatise water.

Willow --- it's actually widespread in France and Germany for a start, thence the years' long movements to take it back into municipal/regional ownership !!

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I had Veolia in Tower Hamlets. They were very good.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

Carillion crisis looms for government as time runs out for refinancing deal

Opposition parties demand to know why ministers such as Chris Grayling continued to hand contracts to failing contractor (Guardian)

With special thanks to Chris Grayling.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -carillion

I can't see that should be too much of a problem. 1/3 of a small section of HS2.

frog222 wrote:="Willow904"]

frog222 wrote: Willow --- it's actually widespread in France and Germany for a start, thence the years' long movements to take it back into municipal/regional ownership !!

Although places like Germany and France outsource to private companies, they still own all the infrastructure. It's usually leased out over a set period, a bit like our rail franchises (part of why I wouldn't prioritise rail renationalisation, as the government already has quite a bit of control over how our railways are run) or run through other public-private partnerships of some kind. Thatcher actually sold all our water services off, lock, stock and barrel. Our water supply is literally owned by international investment groups. That's really not that usual.

""" It's usually leased out over a set period, """
Without wanting to spend all evening on it, the leases were very long , and it took many years and much effort to get out of them !

AngryAsWell wrote:The Independent‏Verified account
@Independent

French hospital promises surgeries for NHS patients delayed by the winter crisis

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/healt ... 57446.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell wrote:Theresa May mocked for suggesting Tories to thank for credit card charge ban imposed by EU
The Government obliged to adopt new rules that were devised by European Parliament and spearheaded by left-wing parties

Lizzy Buchan Political Correspondent @LizzyBuchan 31 m

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 57521.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell wrote:Brexit talks latest: EU to target UK tax haven territories as trade negotiations begin
Exclusive: European Commission official vows to 'go after' British territories

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 56201.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frog222 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:The Independent‏Verified account
@Independent

French hospital promises surgeries for NHS patients delayed by the winter crisis

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/healt ... 57446.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AAW -- I've heard both good and bad tales on crossing the channel for operations . But then, it's a lottery within each country too !

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Four local council byelections this week:

Lancashire CC/Wyre DC - the first of two "double headers" saw two Tory holds in what has been a normally safe area for them, the county division had its first election on present boundaries last year and it saw a very easy Tory win with over 70% of the vote. This time round the Tories still won comfortably, but their share dropped to 60% and Labour polled over half that themselves for a swing in their favour of over 12% overall. As was the case last May, the Greens were the only other party to stand and their share of 8% was slightly down on then. The district ward, which has returned three Tories at every election from 1999 onwards, saw a closer result as the Tories beat Labour by just 55-45 in a straight fight - a swing of about 10% since the last contest in 2015 that was also a two party contest. Labour picked up one seat out of 3 here in the 1990s, but this is easily the closest that they have come since then.

Kent CC/Thanet DC - the second election "pair" this time also saw two Tory holds, and rather more comfortably than further north. The county division was again set up in its present form last year as a double member seat, but had been represented previously by two separate divisions that covered a very similar area - these voted Tory in 2005 and 2009 but went UKIP in 2013, which was a big pointer to them taking Thanet district two years later which they duly did. However the Tories came back to easily win the new division last May with just over half the vote, and they consolidated their grip now with a 5 point increase. Labour moved into a clear second with their own increase (but were still under 20%) whilst the LibDems also increased slightly. UKIP's fall meanwhile continued as their share halved to 8% and they were relegated to 4th, last placed Greens on 4% which was also down. As for the district ward, the Tories have not had it all their own way here in recent years - 1 of the three seats has gone Independent in every election since 2003 with them topping the poll each time since 2007 (and also winning a previous 2009 by-election) and in 2015 UKIP snatched another Tory seat to leave things 1Ind/1C/1UKIP. UKIP did not even stand this time, however, and in their absence and also that of the leading Independent's clear personal vote the Tories too advantage to increase their vote by 20% and win comfortably with almost half the total poll. LibDems stood for only the second time here this millennium - the previous occasion was in 2009 - and they improved significantly on that to come second with a quarter of the vote. Labour third with a clear increase, leapfrogging the Greens who lost almost two thirds of their vote three years ago. The Independent standing this time had been (by some distance) the less successful then, and they dropped further to 4% and last now.

Four contests again next week.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Brexit talks latest: EU to target UK tax haven territories as trade negotiations begin
Exclusive: European Commission official vows to 'go after' British territories

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 56201.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't worry. Hammond's going to tell them they mustn't.

Among others, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) , Amnesty International, Liberty, the Fawcett Society and National Aids Trust warn that the bill, which is returning to the House of Commons on 16 January, “will not protect people’s rights in the UK as the government promised”. They say: “This is in large part because the bill removes the EU charter of fundamental rights from our law.”

tinyclanger2 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Brexit talks latest: EU to target UK tax haven territories as trade negotiations begin
Exclusive: European Commission official vows to 'go after' British territories

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 56201.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't worry. Hammond's going to tell them they mustn't.

Willow904 wrote:I don't think any debate about private outsourcing of public services in the UK would be complete without looking at water. It would be at the top of my list, way before trains (I'd put buses before trains as well) in terms of looking at to renationalise:


http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/09/02 ... ing-water/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, when the non-profit water advocacy group Food and Water Watch looked at average water rates charged by utilities in California, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York, it found that private utilities charged consumers “significantly higher water rates” than public ones did—as much as 50 percent more.

With the lack of a competition element and complex financial arrangements to reduce tax/inflate payments to shareholders - privatised water seems to underperform public provision in a pretty stark and uniform manner. They charge more and invest less. I challenge anyone to find an actual benefit. Indeed, there is so little obvious benefit that only England, Chile and a few US cities have ever felt the need to privatise water.

AngryAsWell wrote:Henry Bolton OBE Verified account
@_HenryBolton

‘Let's go to WAR!' Ukip leader calls on Brexiteers to FIGHT to save Brexit

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh dear... anyone got a Dad's Army Photo?

frog222 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Henry Bolton OBE Verified account
@_HenryBolton

‘Let's go to WAR!' Ukip leader calls on Brexiteers to FIGHT to save Brexit

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh dear... anyone got a Dad's Army Photo?

+


Don't forget that Sir Lord Nigel Farridge said he was going to don Khaki , pick up his rifle , and ER do ... something !

Be Afraid of Far Right nail-bombers targeting pubs, mosques and of course synagogues .

Have I missed out any forrin menaces ?