Ethically squeaky?

I see that my old pal Sam Chapman has posted details of the CPS decision on his PCC in Lancashire, Clive Grunshaw. You can read his blog post here. I will leave the commentary to Sam and indeed as the case is still being considered by the IPCC (I understand), that is another reason for me not to add any more thoughts. I also know only the bare bones of the case.

But suffice to say that this is another example of where the behaviour of a PCC has, at the very least, raised questions about honesty, probity and integrity. There are a number of other examples, some mentioned on this blog of course. And, I have been told, there is another big story to break soon but I have no more details (really, I don't!)

If I were to be cynical, it does seem to be possible that if you come from a certain social or political class, then you can merely say sorry, pay any money back, claim it was all a big mistake and nobody seems to worry that much (well sort of...)

The public have the right to expect only the highest ethical standards from all PCCs and indeed anyone working for the police service, especially those in senior positions. So how did we get to this parlous state of affairs where people almost expect those in such positions to be doing something dodgy? Who is responsible?

• First and foremost those responsible must include those who have been, shall I be polite, economic with the attention they have placed upon their financial affairs.
• The media too, have maybe over-egged it a bit as well (and perhaps I have been guilty of this as well... although dressing up as a chauffeur was rather fun..!) and so we, the tweeting / blogging / writing media, carry some of the responsibility
• And (this is where I risk a flurry of comments), perhaps the public as well. I am not saying that we, as the public, should not expect higher standards of those in power than we expect of ourselves because I think we should. (But please note, I do think we all have responsibility to act ethically.) However, I do think many people shift automatically into blaming everyone in such and such a group (such as all politicians, PCCs, bankers etc) rather than look at the individuals involved. In other words, I think the public (and I include myself here) can be guilty of ethical generalisations and we are being unfair to the majority of that group who are probably busily working hard to do what they have to do... (And this counts for other groups who are pilloried as well such as Eastern European immigrants to people claiming benefits etc)

I cannot control what others do and whether they are being 'economic' with their financial affairs. I can do my bit to make sure my own house is in order of course.

As a blogger, I can, perhaps, be more circumspect and forgiving too. I fundamentally believe that people have the right to make mistakes and be allowed to move on with their lives. And I will apply that principle to all, not just those in leadership positions.

And as a member of the public, I can be responsible for not damning whole sections of people who happen to share a label of some kind or another. (And I know that I have not always done this but I think I am going to try and change...)

So will you join me in this small campaign against prejudice?

Mark Duggan Inquest: and the Mayor says...

I hesitate to blog on this issue for number of reasons:

1. I don't have the time to read the full transcript or the report of the inquest without stopping doing many other things that I regard as more important to me. In this respect, I am pretty ignorant of the whole case. I am happy to admit that.
2. A jury of 10 'ordinary' people sat in a court room for 3 months and came to conclusion that Mark Duggan's death was 'lawful'. Even if I fulfilled point 1, I doubt whether I could be justified in coming to an alternative conclusion. Somethings were said in that courtroom that convinced the jury that even though most of them did not believe he was carrying a gun at the time he was shot, his death was still lawful. 
3. Nonetheless huge questions remain about the facts and conduct of many of those involved. This storify set of tweets is enough to set my mind racing. As is this wikipedia entry. Regardless of the inquest result, it would seem to me that serious errors of judgement were made in hours and days following the shooting of Mr Duggan. (This is another moment, when I hope better decisions are taken.)
4. This is topic that is polarising people although unlike @LouiseMensch I don't think it breaks down into simple party lines. And the inquest result, like Mr Duggan's death, has huge latent symbolic power. And whilst I am not a person to shy away from controversy, I really don't want to add to the heat of this one. 

And then I come across this random selection of tweets this morning, which almost in a nutshell, sum up the diversity of opinion over the result of the inquest.

But in the spirit of this blog, I will ask what has been and what should be the role of the elected PCC for London in this matter? This of course is Mayor Boris Johnson supported by the Deputy Mayor Stephen Greenhalgh. What have they said about this? Should they have said more by now?

I cannot find any public statement from Mr Greenhalgh. (I am happy to be corrected.) The only statement I can find from the Mayor is this one. It appears that Mr Johnson was caught on route to another meeting and asked to give a statement. In other words no official written statement has been issued it seems. (Again, I am happy to be corrected.)

This is clearly an operational matter and perhaps the political leadership of the Met Police are staying mostly clear in order to allow the operational chief, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, to front the matter. I do not know.

Nonetheless, I think I would have expected more. If many people (perhaps hundreds, if not thousands) are expressing their great distrust in the police and/or their belief that the shooting of Mark Duggan is yet another example of institutional racism, then this is a huge political problem. And this is a problem that will not be solved by water cannons, hanging from zip wires or just setting up yet another task force. Some dedicated leadership from many quarters is required, not least from the Mayor and his Deputy.

I await to see what Mayor Johnson and Deputy Mayor Greenhalgh do next...

CCG & systemic conflicts of interest (part 3)

Warning: this is a long post!

________

Late last night I received a reply to my concerns from Lou Patten, the Chief Officer of the CCG. (I wrote to her last Friday with a bespoke version of my blog post below). I am reprinting her reply in the interests of fairness and transparency, as it addresses many (but not all) of the points I raised with her. And below this letter, I also reprint the email I have just sent back to her.

________

7 January

Dear Jon

Thank you for your email, received on 3 January 2014, regarding the interests of Dr Jackson, Dr West and Executive Committee members in Vale Health Ltd. For clarity, I have answered your queries by describing our CCG’s approach to developing a greater level of transparency about our register of interests and I have specifically addressed your query regarding Dr Jackson’s and Dr West’s previous shareholdings.

Aylesbury Vale CCG accepts that as a member organisation (where each GP Practice is a member practice) we are likely to have interests of members that could come into conflict with a commissioning decision. Our attitude to this has been to develop a strategy of gaining as high a level of transparency as possible about our register of interests and a robust method for dealing with conflicts if they arise; this work remains in progress. Whilst I am pleased you have found our updated Conflicts of Interest Policy ‘tighter’, I would like to further detail the work that we aim to complete by the end of March that will offer further transparency about how we register interests and handle any perceived or actual conflicts. This work includes:

• The Governing Body took the decision in July 2013 (minutes attached) to ask all members and employees for declarations of all shareholdings, company interests and partner interests.

• Our Governing Body Register of Interests includes listing where members have previously held shares, so Drs Jackson and West are described as ‘previously shareholders’. We felt this was important in the interests of transparency.

• We are currently in the process of putting the Executive Committee declarations together ready for publication on our website. You have highlighted the need to be as accurate as possible in this information, so it is taking time to check our records. Please note this is additional voluntary information, as CCGs are required only to publish the Governing Body details.

• We have asked for all member practices to declare by exception any interests (in other words, we are only being told about the members of staff who have interests, rather than asking all staff at all member practices to declare no interests).

• All individuals who take part in any CCG business are asked to declare all interests; this covers GPs or other clinical and non- clinical staff who might do some one-off project work.

Dr Jackson and Dr West

In response to your query about the Companies House listing of Dr Jackson and Dr West, I have spoken to the Secretary of Vale Health and clarified that this is indeed a timing issue. For clarity, Drs Jackson and West were officially no longer shareholders from the day they wrote and revoked their shareholdings in April and May 2013 respectively. From that day onwards they did not receive any advantage offered to other Vale Health shareholders. At a later stage they were reimbursed for their shareholdings and the process commenced to apply through the Vale Health Secretary and relevant Accountancy firm to remove their names from the shareholding list and from the Companies House Return. This process has clearly taken some time and I have alerted the Secretary to this issue.

The reason Drs Jackson and West revoked their shareholdings whilst the Executive Committee continue with their shares in Vale Health relates to our policy for managing conflicts of interests. If Vale Health or any related company were successful in any CCG procurement of services, the final sign off would have to be taken not by the Executive Committee (due to their conflict of interests) but by the Governing Body. As the GP members of the Governing Body, Drs Jackson and West no longer have shares in the company so they can participate in that decision – although the final permission for their involvement in the decision is down to our Lay Member (as set out in the policy). Please note that any such decisions would be taken at our Governing Body meeting, all of which are now held in public.

In summary, Aylesbury Vale CCG takes very seriously its role in ensuring a transparent and watertight approach to the governance of our commissioning decision making. Our aim is to be as transparent as possible about all interests held not only by Governing Body members but also by all employees and member practice staff and to ensure that there is a robust policy in place for managing any perceived or real conflicts should they arise. I have found your enquiry very helpful in highlighting areas where this has not been clear and I hope I have been able to rectify this in my response.

Yours sincerely
Lou Patten
Chief Officer
Aylesbury Vale CCG

_______

Here is my reply:

Dear Lou

Many thanks for your detailed letter that I received late last night. I am most grateful for the speed of your reply to the many of the points I raised in my email to you last Friday.

I note your investigation into the share holdings of Dr Jackson and Dr West. I am comforted by your statement that the Companies House records are merely out of date. You say that the “process has clearly taken some time and I have alerted the [Vale Health] Secretary to this issue”. Please can you ask the Secretary to let me know when the process has been completed so that I can update my records? Thank you.

However, I remain very concerned about conflicts of interest. Please allow me to explain why: whilst transparency & absenting oneself from moments of critical decision making are two key ingredients in avoiding such conflicts, the fact that there is such an overlap between their commissioning role and the financial interests of the majority (still) of your executive team in Vale Health raises many questions about good public governance.

Please forgive me if this is a misinterpretation of the points you make: you appear to be saying that you and I should only be concerned about the shareholdings of Drs Jackson & West because only they, as Board members, will be making the critical decisions around commissioning contracts. With regard to members of the Executive Team, so long as everyone is transparent about their financial interests & clears the room at any point when (perhaps) preliminary decisions on commissioning are made, then everything is fine.

I fundamentally disagree.

The reason I disagree is that strategic commissioning is (as I am sure you know) a defined as a process not a set of final procurement decisions. The CCG is involved in a complicated and strategic process to determine the health needs, wants and preferences of the Vale community and produce a commissioning plan and procurement strategy that meets those, in the most efficacious and efficient way possible. Within this large and multi modal process there are ample opportunities to influence the direction in favour of the kinds of provision available from Vale Health. Equally, as this process rolls forward there are ample opportunities for Vale Health to adjust its strategy to be more in line with the emerging CCG strategy giving itself a commercial advantage over other suppliers. If people have a concern on both sides, there is, I would say, a systemic conflict of interest. (And there is, of course, the over-arching concern for the health and well-being of the community / patients as well.)

Now to be very clear, all of what I have said is speculation. I have absolutely no evidence that any such exchange of strategic intelligence across the boundary between the CCG and Vale Health has ever occurred or will ever occur. But despite all members of the CCG being signed and 100% committed to the Nolan principles (I assume), exchanges of such information could occur. And since it could, I ask you, what does this look like to the public? I would contend that good governance (like justice) has to be done and be seen to be done.

I find it difficult to believe that if such strategic commercial exchanges of intelligence were to happen that these could be regulated / investigated / uncovered in any kind of reliable way. Therefore my solution is very simple: no one advising or working as part of the CCG should have any financial interests (directly or indirectly) in providers who may well benefit down the line from commercial contracts. The government has created a commercial commissioning framework that mixes financial and public interests. I think it is behoving upon all players to have very crisp demarcations of such interests.

I am not the only person raising these concerns with the new NHS structure: Managing conflicts of interest in clinical commissioning groups | RCGP/ NHS Confederation (although I expect that you have seen this before. Scenario 1 on page 3 is of interest I feel.)

I am interested in how your current policy on managing conflicts of interest handles the systemic concerns that I am raising. I look forward to your thoughts.

Furthermore, while I note the care you are taking in producing a comprehensive statement about the interests of all members and employees of the CCG, I am surprised there is nothing on the website about even the Board at this stage (with a holding statement about everyone else). Your CCG has been operational since April last year and was in existence as a shadow body for some months before then. Is there not something that you can add to your link now?

Finally, although I did mention it as an aside in my earlier email, I am concerned that there are no working links on your ‘how are we doing’ pages. Please can you let me know by when you will have web based accessible public information on the performance of the CCG? Thank you.

Thank you once again for your attention to all these matters

Very best wishes

Jon 

________

I will be interested in her reply. I will keep you posted. For the record: my thanks to @Bill_Russell3 for the link to the RCGP / NHS Confederation document

UPDATE 1150|150114: My letter has had a reply from Lou Patten. You can read it here.

Solving problems: the coalition government's approach

Try out this algorithm: does it fit?

75000 & counting

Page loads on this blog have now exceeded the 75,000 mark. I know this pales into insignificance against the illustrious blogs such as MentalHealthCop (whose work I admire hugely) or that of @TheCustodySgt  (who, despite his current identity crisis, blogs superbly too). I am sure their blogs get many more hits than mine.

Nonetheless, I am chuffed and it is a good way to start the new year. So thank you again to all the real people and bots dipping into this blog!

Here's to 2014!

Policing & ethical practice research (update)

Just a quick update on progress of my FoI inquiry into ethical practice in the police service. Prompted by the ending of the College of Policing consultation on a new Code of Ethics, just over a month ago, I wrote to all the police services in the UK (with a couple of exceptions) about the approach they are taking to the development of ethical practice.

The blog post where I published my FoI set of questions is here.

I have had a eight back so far (thank you!). The deadline for responding for the rest, I think, is tomorrow (if I have calculated the 20 working days plus bank holidays correctly). I plan on doing the analysis over the course of this coming week.

Headlines so far from these eight responses?

• Almost all the eight responding forces want to claim a 'yes' in answer to my first question (Do officers and staff undergo any regular programmed briefing/training/development in ethical practice?) but their answers betray a 'no' since there are no regular sessions for development programmed in. Most have cited ethical practice being covered in the introductory training but very little beyond. 
• On the other hand, most frontline operational staff get a first aid booster once a year of about half a day. Health & Safety is a more mixed picture. 
• About half the respondents say that ethical practice is embedded in their recruitment & promotion processes by dint of using the police leadership competency model (which includes integrity). The other half misunderstood the question or gave an answer which suggested that ethics were not integrated into such processes. 
• Whistleblowing numbers (question 8) range from 10 to 158, with half of the respondents saying they do not have such data. 

One police service came back with the query:

The department who will be providing the information have asked for clarification on what you mean by ‘ethical practise’. Please can you specify what your interpretation of the term is, so we can identify if it falls under a slightly different category?

I replied suggesting that they look at the CoP Code of Ethics. (Although to be fair, I did unfortunately interchange 'code of ethics' with 'code of practice' at one point in my set of questions. This could have resulted in some confusion.)

So, if you interested to know more, please watch this space!

Aylesbury Vale CCG: is this what the NHS has come to now?

One of the most controversial changes that the current government has introduced is the top down restructuring of the NHS. It remains controversial because before the 2010 election the Conservatives repeatedly promised “no more top down reorganisations” of the NHS. David Cameron said that "With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS". (Ref) It continues to be controversial as the very real threat of the NHS being Balkanised into a series of privatised units appears to be slowly but inexorably happening. (See here and here for example)

So here we are now, almost a year into the some of the most radical changes the NHS has ever undergone.

Locally, this has meant the Aylesbury Vale Clinical Commissioning Group taking over the role previously held by the Primary Care Trust (broadly speaking). The AVCCG will be buying health care services on behalf of us all. I blogged about their conflicts of interest in some detail 10 months ago. Having taken that blog as a report to the Town Council, we then wrote to the CCG about our concerns. Buckinghamshire County Council also became involved and Louise Patten the Chief Officer of the CCG wrote a long and considered letter on 26 June 2013 to Cllr Lin Hazell (the Town Council was copied in). The quotes below come from that letter.

Ms Patten said that their Conflicts of Interest Policy was “being reviewed as a matter of urgency”. The new policy can be found here and it would appear that this indeed has happened.

In my previous blog I highlighted this particular statement:

If the withdrawal of a CCG member has the effect of rendering the meeting in question inquorate, the chair reserves the right to adjourn and reconvene the meeting when appropriate membership can be ensured.

This has now been strengthened and now reads:

Loss of quorum - If the withdrawal of a CCG member results in the loss of quorum of the meeting, the item cannot be decided upon at that meeting. The meeting should be reconvened when appropriate quorum can be ensured.

There is more of course. But this is certainly tighter than before. This is good.

However, I remain concerned about the overlap of interests between the AVCCG and the ‘for profit’ local supplier called Vale Health (description here). In Ms Patten's letter, she said “Both Dr Jackson and Dr West felt their position as shareholders of Vale Health was not tenable with their position on the Governing Body in terms of conflicted interest and both members resigned their shareholding in April and May 2013 respectively”. She went onto to say “Neither member has any ongoing interest in the company, nor in any other company perceived to be conflicted”.

This is another matter I highlighted in my blog from March last year as well. So that is all OK then…? Well probably but I am confused by the latest document held by Companies House which details the shareholders in Vale Health. The date of return is 18/5/13 and it was filed in electronic format on 1/8/13.

In this document Dr Jackson is listed as owning 4 ordinary shares “held as at the date of this return” and Dr West having 2 “held as at the date of this return” (of a total 496 shares). I appreciate that Dr West’s shares may well have been disposed of in May and just missed the date of return. However, Ms Patten said that Dr West had disposed of his in April which is several weeks earlier. Perhaps this matter could be cleared up?

It is all the more confusing still since the button on the website that would take readers to the list of all declared interests (as at the time of writing: 1600 on 3/1/14) does not work. Perhaps this might be fixed too, given that the CCG has been officially live since April last year. (As an aside, I would also highlight that none of the buttons on the “How are we doing” webpage work either. The website proudly says:

In this section we’ll be keeping our performance reports and other benchmarking material, as well as keeping you abreast of the wider-scale state of the work of the CCG. We will use this information to measure how we are maintaining or improving the health outcomes and service standards delivered for our population

… but try clicking on “Performance Reports” or “National & Local Standards” and nothing happens. Could the public have this data made accessible sometime, perhaps?)

But to return to the issue of conflicts of interest. The AVCCG site lists all the members of their Executive Team. Here is the list:

• Dr. Christine Campling (20s)
• Dr Kevin Suddes (5s)
• Dr Juliet Sutton (11s)
• Dr Stuart Logan (1s)
• Dr Karen West (2s)
• Lesley Munro-Faure (5s) 
• Trevor Boyd (-)
• Dr Malcolm Jones (1s)
• Dr Charles Todd (6s)
• Dr Rodger Dickson (19s)
• Louise Patten (-)
• Jane McVea (-)
• Robert Majilton (-)
• Colin Thompson (-)

You may be wondering about the numbers in brackets. Or of course, you may well have worked out that these Executive Team members are also listed as shareholders of Vale Health on the Companies House document. The numbers are their allotted shares.

I don’t know about you, but this does not leave me feeling particularly comfortable. Nine out of fourteen members of the commissioning body’s executive team have a financial interest in one of the agencies that they could be commissioning in the future.

• Does this situation need to change?
• Is this an example of good governance?
• Or are you quite relaxed about this state of affairs?

____________

UPDATE 1216 | 080114: I turned this blog into a letter to the CCG. You can read the reply from the Chief Officer above. 

New Year: New Words

Happy New Year! The fresh new year of 2014 dawns and I trust that you, dear reader, had a couple of weeks of festive fun with friends and family, full of the wealth of good cheer and the warmth of great conversation.

However, it has come to my notice that certain words are being overused. The BBC has helpfully put together a list of said words here. So I thought it was time to offer you some replacement and additional words to use in the coming year.

2013	Optional historic word	The 2014 word?
Twerk	Jitterbug	Shiffle
Selfie	Daguerreotype	Look
Passion	Commitment	Promise
Look	Focus	See
Robust	Strong	Bendy
So	Therefore	Here
Delivery	Outcome	Difference
Project	Initiative	Action
Hashtag	Meme	Connection
Amazeballs	Amazing	Shining
Doing	Having	Making
Absolutely	Surely	Yes
Fail	Incorrect	No
Responsible	Accountable	Serious
Anyway	Okay	…
Yeah-no	Possibly	Yes/No/Maybe
Legacy	Consequence	Change
Hipster	Hipster	Follower
Geek	Nerd	Technologist
Iconic	Totemic	Unique

And half a dozen new words for 2014:

• Tecknowledgist: someone who uses technology to build knowledge for all in an accessible and inclusive way
• Wickivist: someone who takes action to address 'wicked' social problems (rather than just analyse, moan or sign online petitions about them)
• Honetitian: a politician who answers question honestly, personally and authentically, unshackled by dogma, being 'on message' or fudgey finagling 
• Vervacious: having the quality of intense life affirming confidence that makes others feel confident too (Beyoncé is vervacious)
• Paxic: an approach to change & disturbance which looks for common ground first (second, third...) and finds points of agreement on which to build peace and community integration
• Frission: the power, warmth and energy that happens when friends come together face to face and talk (rather than just remotely text/gram/chat)

What is your new word for 2014?

The importance of face to face contact

I understand that Buckinghamshire County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council are on the cusp of deciding to withdraw front desk staff from the libraries in Buckingham & Winslow. These are the officers who are able to answer council taxpayer queries about county and district services face to face. If this happens, and you live in the north of the County, you will have to trek all the way down to Aylesbury to visit either county or district offices.

Several of us in the Town Council want a different solution. We are proposing that the County, District and Town Council officers & members urgently sit down around a table and find an economic solution that will mean that local people can still access face-to-face help.

Do you think such a meeting should happen? If yes, please sign these two petitions (one on the County Council site and one on the AVDC site):

• Aylesbury Vale Council Petition
• Buckinghamshire County Council Petition

Let's talk!

The 'not giving a floating duck' problem (Secret Diary of a PCC)

Well, I am totally stuffed: not just by the turkey, fox & game pie but also by the Home Secretary and her velveteen apparatchiks in Marsham Street. They want to cut my grant by nearly £6m in the next financial year! What?!? A precept rise of 2% won't cover it. And if I dare have a referendum to seek support for a (say) a 4% rise and then lose, I would have to pay the cost of said referendum (£1.2m) out of money I do not have. So here I am: stuck between a huge Christmas cake and a mountain of cold, solid Christmas pudding.

And despite crime coming down, demand is rising like my beagle's blood pressure on Boxing day. Just when I thought the Chief Constable had managed to match resources to requirements over the festive season, along comes the bloomin' rain and the overtime budgets float down the river. So much for the Big Society... when the crisis hits the fan, people expect the public services to turn out.

(And I see the PM got an earful down in Kent yesterday. Of course Kent County Council have been proud not to increase their council tax over the last four years! Chickens coming home to roost eh?! And it's not as if Eric Pickles' doesn't know about flooding, but piffle, that was last Christmas and we have learnt so much since then...! Pickles will, of course, carry on offering up Local Authority grants for the biggest cuts of all, no matter what.)

So what to do? I am thinking outsourcing is the only way ahead. As with PFI, I will just have to mortgage the future in order to make the present finances balance. Yes I know there are risks but I really have no option. We need cheaper policing...

Of course once we do outsource, the biggest risk we run is loss of that public service commitment we see so often: where police officers and staff will put their boots on, on Christmas Day to help people in need. I worry that if staff and officers are working for profit making companies, (putting it bluntly) they might not give so much as a floating duck about emergencies beyond what they are contracted to perform. But I believe I have covered this risk by drafting this clause to go into the contracts we will be agreeing with future private sector providers:

As a contracted supplier to NorthFordWestshire (NFWshire) you will be required to:

• Not worry about profits during times of public emergencies
• Go all extra and unforeseeable miles during said emergencies
• Ensure employment regulations expressly require all staff to remain chipper and jauntily committed to serving the public during such emergencies 
• Have a robust volunteer / Big Society strategy that will result in an immediate doubling of resources in times of crisis at no extra cost to the public purse
• Apply these clauses whenever the commissioner thinks it is an emergency

I cannot see a problem with the likes of G4Sercapita agreeing to such contractual terms. Can you?

Happy New Year! 

_________________________________________________

The Secret PCC Diary until now:

• Collected diary - days one to ten
• Day 50
• Day 68
• Appointing the new Chief Constable
• PCCs must show people its worth voting (interview with the secret PCC)
• Fields of ponies: the Secret PCC does Income Generation!
• By the pricking of my thumbs, something radical this way comes!
• Too big for their pixie boots: the Secret PCC makes a speech to his Police & Crime Panel
• Witchcraft: the Secret PCC & managing awkward Chiefs
• Social media policy (Secret Diary of a PCC)
• The magic of Brasso (Secret diary of a PCC)

Legal disclaimer: just in case you thought this series of secret PCC blogs is based upon a real person or persons: it isn't. It really isn't. Any similarity to a living PCC is entirely coincidental.

International sheep rescue

Yesterday, I helped rescue a sheep. 

My wife and I were out for a walk across the fields near where we live and happened across a distressed sheep that had got tangled in some bracken. Wool and brambles do not mix well. And we were both very concerned that the sheep could be slowly throttling him (? there were horns...) self.

But what to do? We did not know who owned the sheep nor the farmer whose field it was. So I dialled 999 and sought help from the police service, hoping they would be able to spare the resource to assist. Or at least put us onto someone who could.

Within about 25 minutes a constable and PCSO turned up in a liveried covered pickup van. Having established that the nearby farmer did not own the sheep and one who did was not answering his mobile, the four of us pondered what to do next. There was only one solution: free the sheep.

But we needed some tools. Now I assumed the back of the truck would be police equivalent of the Thunderbird 2 hanger: it was nearly as big (as the Gerry Anderson set).

However, apart from a few traffic cones and some fluorescent jackets, there was not much. Certainly nothing in a way of a saw or even a Swiss army knife. The officer quipped that they weren't allowed to carry offensive weapons!

But improvisation and the 'can do' attitude of the police saved the day and it is amazing what can be achieved with a seat belt cutter. The police officer sliced through the strands of foliage one at a time and the sheep was released. Once he 'found its feet' again, he (she?) ran off with half a bush attached to his shoulder. The PCSO phoned the farmer again who this time answered the call and she gave him an update.

So what did I learn (or was reminded of) from this incident:

• The police are resourceful, creative, willing and committed to helping all in distress, including sheep
• Their 'kit' is pretty limited (but perhaps for good reason?)
• The police do not just deal with crime (and send this on a post card to the Home Secretary)
• They deploy their resources responsively depending on minute to minute priorities (I am sure that had we been told that no support was available for several hours, we would have found some other way but... I am very glad they were able to help, and I expect the sheep was too)
• Seat belt cutters have more than one use!

So may I wish all who work in and with the police (and all emergency services) a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. While most of us will be tucking into sprouts, watching the Queen and enjoying the Dr Who & Downton Abbey specials: there will be police officers and staff, firefighters and ambulance crews waiting for the next job to do. 

Thank you to all of them (and their families who have their festivities on another day). 

Seasonal greetings!

Dear reader, here is my Christmas Card to you:

My word and theme for next year is 'Being' (This blog post explains why)

May 2014 be all that you wish and hope for. In this complicated, busy and beautiful world, may you find peace and joy this Christmas. And long may it continue.

Jon

Public accountability & Police & Crime Panels

I have been browsing through the Home Affairs Committee: Written evidence Police and Crime Commissioners: Progress to date document. As you do... (Thanks to Martin Beckford and Mark Ryan for highlighting this tome for me.)

In it, the PCC for Thames Valley states (in talking about the role of police and crime panels in holding their commissioners to account):

8. First, may I point out that police and crime panels do not have a statutory responsibility to hold commissioners to account. The Home Secretary has made it clear that it is the electorate, through the ballot box, who holds their commissioner to account. 

Through the ballot box...? Hmm.

So how does this work? I note this past story in a local newspaper:

To quote the article:

Anthony Stansfeld, who was elected in November, has said that he does not think the PCC should be too old, and feels that at the age of 67 he should only see out one term. “At the moment I have no intention of running again,” he said.

(Mr Stansfeld, who I understand was born on October 14, 1945, will be aged 70 when the next elections are due in May 2016.)

So, let me get this correct: a PCC who has publicly stated that he has no intention of running again due to his age has also stated that it is the electorate that holds him to account at the ballot box.

How does that work then?

I would argue that public accountability is about far more than a once in a while election. It is about working in partnership with the Panel and accepting their role as one of proper challenge, not only to decisions after they have been made but also towards plans for a start. Mr Stansfeld says:

Finally, where there has been tension between the Panel and myself, it has usually involved the following.... The Panel seeking to extend its role and remit beyond its statutory duties and responsibilities, e.g. attempting to scrutinise my intentions, rather than my decisions and actions, and effectively seeking to act as a consultative body with a view to approving or endorsing my proposals prior to my taking decisions.

How very dare they do this!!

And of course, public accountability is about far more than this.

But have a read through what Mr Stansfeld says in his submission to the Parliamentary Committee (his piece is on page 76). What do you think?

Here is a 'wordle' word cloud of his submission:

17 ways to assess your PCC

A few days ago, I wrote a blog about how the performance of PCCs might be assessed. You can read it here. I have now had a chance to think of 17 ways in which PCCs might be comprehensively measured. Here they are:

1. Given that they are elected, PCCs should first be measured against what they promised to achieve in their campaign literature / manifesto. This of course was hugely variable with some campaign statements talking about whisky, hops & scented roses and nothing about policing or crime. Others made such vague statements to make it almost impossible to assess their progress. But it is where I would start.
2. They should of course be assessed against their legally defined role. On the Gov.UK site this is defined as "PCCs are elected to make sure that local police meet the needs of the community". So how is your PCC operationalising that measure? Their role is more than simply that of course...
3. One of the tasks of a PCC is to appoint an effective (if not superlative) Chief Constable. So one measure of a PCC is just how good the appointed Chief Constable is. Not all PCCs will do this (although I suspect most will in the course of their tenure). And how do you measure the 'goodness' of a Chief Constable? Answers on a postcard please...
4. An allied measure to this, I would contend, is the quality of the relationship between a PCC and their CC. Judging this of course is hard to do although we can see evidence of where the relationships have been somewhat, shall we say, strained... However there would be occasions where both PCC and CC are present which could provide some (body language?) indicators of the quality of this relationship, perhaps.
5. Another key task is setting a robust budget that matches the police & crime plan. Is there consistency between budget and plan. Is the plan working?
6. As my previous blog has said, the link between PCC action and reductions in actual crime is at best tenuous... but of course it may be that is how the voting public may well judge the success of the PCC in question. But all crime or certain categories? 
7. Public engagement is surely something to pay attention to: the best PCCs will be out meeting their public and engaging them in a dialogue about the future of policing and crime in their area. This can be measured purely on the basis of volume: has the PCC been 'out there'? Moreover can they evidence paying attention to what their public have said and acted upon their concerns? 
8. Whilst the PCC has limited influence over what the constabulary does, they do all manage their Office for the Police & Crime Commissioner. So one measure of a PCC is how well do they run their own ship? Is the OPCC effective, efficient, transparent etc?
9. All PCCs are bound by the 7 Nolan Principles and their Oath. (Here is a link to the Cheshire PCC's website with this information). One way to assess a PCC is to see if their integrity measures up well against these principles & oath.
10. Of course, while they made their campaign promises, new issues arise and the deft PCC will be able to respond to them with elan. But how do you actually measure what I will call 'strategic responsiveness'? 
11. Another measure is mere presence: have they been around enough? Or have they carried on being a councillor and/or part time PCC? Have they ensconced themself onto various national bodies and spent too much time away from the area?
12. Although I am not sure again how this might be measured (perhaps a 360 degree process?), but has the PCC engaged successfully in partnership and collaborative initiatives? By their presence and contribution have they helped the teams become more than the sum of their individual parts? Or not...
13. Have they commissioned the 'and crime' services successfully? Is the performance of these various suppliers evidencing effective commissioning and management processes, or not? 
14. Has the PCC developed a positive public profile? Do people know who the PCC is, what they do and stand for...maybe even what they look like? 
15. A crude measure in 2016 (assuming we still have PCCs then) will be whether more people come out to vote. That at least would be a numeric measure of their impact.
16. How many complaints has the PCC had to deal with? Have they been subject to any kind of audit / action by the Police & Crime Panel?
17. Has the PCC themself paid any attention at all to the need for the public to have a way of measuring their performance? Has the PCC ever invited feedback on how well they are doing and what they might do to improve? Does the PCC provide any data to the public which would help citizens do this? In short, does the PCC care about making their performance public?

So those are my 17 measures. What would you add

...and 18. They are kind to children and animals - especially police dogs! #Dontditchthedogs

My visit to Number 10

Yesterday I had my first (and probably only ever) opportunity to walk through the doors of 10 Downing Street.

I was there for a meeting of the SME Panel. I have blogged about this before but in summary I have been part of smallish group of SME business people over two and half years advising the Cabinet Office on how to make government procurement more 'SME friendly'.

The essence is this: SMEs can provide far better value services and products to government based on lower overheads, more innovation and better quality. This can lead to some staggering reductions in cost to the taxpayer as well as helping the British economy to grow. It is proverbial 'no brainer'.

However (and this is a rather large however...) many (most?) government procurement departments at all levels and in many agencies seemed to be wedded to processes that favour larger organisations. And the only winners are these large companies: not the taxpayer, not the growing economy of smaller businesses and not the citizens (as the beneficiaries of these services). Frankly it is a huge scandal and it has been my pleasure to have been a small part in this government's attempt to turn the procurement tanker around in the English channel, as it were.

Anyway yesterday, we were graced by the presence of Lord Young and Nick Hurd MP, Minister for Civil Society. They both listened carefully to all the points made by the panel members present. We also had some useful information given to us by Stephen Allot, the Crown Representative for SMEs.

Here are some of the points that were made:

• We were introduced to the "Small Business / GREAT Ambition" strategy of the government.
• The measures in this include abolishing PQQs for low value tenders (less than €200k), putting all public tenders onto a single site (Contracts Finder), a trip-advisor type feedback mechanism for purchasers to rate suppliers and vice versa... and more. 
• The G-Cloud level playing field has shown just what SMEs can do: "as of the end of October 2013, 56% of of total public sector spend by value through the G-Cloud framework had gone to SME suppliers" (from Stephen Allot's blog)
• One of the suppliers around the table declared that they had just won a contract with a bid of £6m. A large well known IT supplier had also submitted a bid (and lost) of £100m. This points to the vast improvements in taxpayer value that can be achieved by procuring from SMEs
• Many parts of government are pursuing this strategy with verve and alacrity while other parts (sometimes even within the same Department) are still living in the 'dark ages'... paying out to over priced contracts because the procurement processes were not SME friendly
• A system will be introduced to shame government purchasers & large primes who fail to pay their suppliers on time

Nick Hurd challenged the group to come up with a list of actions that can be taken before the next election to institute irreversible change in how government procures, beyond what is already planned. That will be the subject of a future blog...

Waxing & waning (2)

Following my appearance on BBC You & Yours last week, I was featured on this week's Wednesday programme as well to accompany further research by the Y&Y team (specifically Kevin Core)

You can listen to the episode here. (About 1'20" in)

It is emerging that perhaps bio-diesel could be the source of the problem although it is still unclear. Apparently the RAC have helped over 600 drivers with this 'waxing' problem in November alone. You can read the BBC blog which has some more detail here.

It would seem that Department of Transport and the fuel industry have been working on this problem for the last few months. But...

• Why were we not told?
• Is it now time for them to shift up a gear (or two) in their investigations?

So if you have experienced this, please let You and Yours know so that we can keep public attention on this problem. My hunch is that the industry and government need some nudging to get this problem solved very soon. The next few months are going to be colder and there will be more drivers suffering. And the problem has been known about for quite some time by both the industry and trading standards...

Do we have to wait until a driver or passenger is seriously injured before speedier and effective action is taken?

UPDATE 131213|1410: Media developments

It seems as if this story is growing. I have spoken today to Radio 5 Live, the RAC and the Sunday Times. Indeed (if you are not already bored with listening to me on the radio), I will be on tomorrow night live on Radio 5 at around 21.45

But the thought has struck me: if the agencies involved in the research (and that includes the industry, government, RAC, trading standards, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and probably the AA too among others) had gone public with this a few months ago more data could have been gathered and possibly the pattern could have been spotted sooner than now... a bit of breakdown / repair epidemiology as it were.

Why has it all been kept hush hush?

Buckingham: Doughnut or Donut?

I have only heard a verbal report of yesterday's Aylesbury Vale District Councils Development Control Committee, but to my knowledge and understanding:

• The development of a Sainsbury's supermarket on the edge of Buckingham was considered
• The council's planning officers had written a comprehensive and balanced report about the pro's and con's of this planning application. (You can read the full report here) 
• This report goes into some detail about the traffic and retail impact of this new store, were it to be built, as well as reporting the comments from both the Town Council and residents of the area
• In conclusion, the officers state (I have added some bold) "11.3 In respect of the retail impact, having regard to the likely significant adverse level of impact upon convenience shopping; the concern that the proposal would result in the closure of the Waitrose store, the loss of convenience goods shopping provision more generally; and the effect on linked shopping trips which would lead to consequential impacts on the vitality and viability of Buckingham town centre it is concluded that the proposals would have a significantly adverse impact upon town centre trade and turnover, consumer choice and town centre health contrary to paragraph 27 the NPPF [and]
• 11.4 It is recommended therefore that having regard to the likely significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Buckingham town centre, Members should defer and delegate the application for refusal subject to the resolution of matters in respect of highway details. Any refusal will be subject to such reasons as Officers consider appropriate.
• It is my experience that it is rare for the members to go against a specific recommendation by their professional planning officers.
• Town Councillor Howard Mordue read out a statement representing the views of the Town Council (see the report for these). However as District Councillor Howard Mordue, he later spoke in support of the application (in something akin to Gaullist mode, I assume!)
• The application was approved subject to the planning officers negotiating a mitigating s.106 agreement with Sainsbury's involving (and this is where I am hazy) the building of a new health centre and other support for the town centre.

I am worrying deeply about this decision. And yes the irony is not lost on me that at the Town Council meeting I proposed cautious approval, although I lost the vote. As the AVDC committee report outlines on page 12:

Proposed by Cllr. Harvey, seconded by Cllr. Newell, that the Town Council cautiously supports this outline application subject to further robust discussions with it (and the CCG or appropriate part of the NHS) and resolution of our serious concerns about s106 arrangements, health care provision, public transport, traffic, economic & structural implications so that we get the best deal for Buckingham. Members voted 6:7 with no abstentions; the proposal therefore fell.

And so it would appear that AVDC members voted in accordance with my original motion at the Town Council. I hope they note that!!

But why am I worrying? I guess it because I fear that the s.106 deal to be struck will not be tough enough. AVDC has made a public commitment to becoming a more 'commercial' council:

Councillor Neil Blake, Leader of the Council, said: “We have to build on what we’re doing – becoming a more commercial council."

For me being a commercial council is not just about improving effectiveness and efficiency (as arguably haven't councils always tried to do that?) it is crucially about developing commercial 'nous' deep in the culture organisation. This includes having hard (but fair) negotiations with Sainsbury's.

Because if they don't, Buckingham risks going from a traditional doughnut town (with sugar on the outside and a hearty jammy centre) to an American style donut town with nothing in the middle and just a ring on the outside.

So what would I be seeking from Sainsbury's to mitigate the impact on the town, and indeed make the new store a positive asset to everyone living in Buckingham or nearby? Here is my wishlist:

• A fully equipped state of the art health centre (as more or less promised in the marketing literature pushed through everyone's doors a few months ago)
• Revenue support to this health centre to help get it on its feet for the first couple of years
• Enough revenue to allow AVDC to make parking free for the first three hours in the town centre car parks for the next three years (just like the free parking around the new Sainsbury's)
• Capital investment in the town to create new toilets for shoppers and visitors
• Support for a village & town bus service to bring people to both the new store and the town centre
• A promise by Sainsbury's to favour full time job contracts with a proportionate mix of some part time ones (rather than a rash of zero hour unstable contracts for their operating staff)
• A contribution towards either the University or the Town Council or a new independent Trust (or a combination of all three) to set up a new Arts centre in the town to support the visual and performing arts to draw people into the town.

It is a long list (and perhaps not all s.106'able). But let us be very clear, Sainsbury's stand to make a great deal of money out of the town. Why should they not be putting a good deal of that profit back into our town?

And as always, what do you think? What do you think of the decision taken yesterday? What would be on your wishlist?

UPDATE 121213|0901: Email received from Cllr Howard Mordue

Just received an email from Howard where he stated: "Your informant was wrong It was deferred" As this seemed to me to be a challenge to what I have written (and was told), I have just phoned AVDC planning to check on the precise decision. Their officer said to me that the decision was that the application was "deferred for approval subject to the 106 agreement". This seems compatible with what I have written above so I won't be changing the words. Hopefully, this update clears up any lingering confusion though. But tell me if not!

UPDATE 230114|1109: Email received from Town Clerk: for total clarity

AVDC SDCC minutes for 11th December say (a) RESOLVED – That determination of the application indicated below be deferred to enable a planning obligation agreement with the Council to be completed to ensure that the health care site obligations contained in a planning obligation agreement dated 28 October 2009 with this Council in relation to the adjacent residential site are secured and, if considered necessary, financial contributions to secure improvements to Buckingham Town Centre and for the application to be referred back to the Committee for determination. 

13/01465/AOP, Demolition of existing restaurant and development of supermarket (Class A1 use), petrol filling station (Sui Generis use) with 394 car parking spaces and 36 cycle parking spaces, together with a Health Care facility (Class D1 use) with 77 car parking spaces and 12 cycle parking spaces and associated highways works (including realignment of existing spine road), access, landscaping and ancillary works.

Your Council | Your Money | Your Choice

Buckinghamshire County Council debated their budget for next year a few days ago. This was following a widespread consultation on the council tax budget and precept. Here is the front cover of the report of that consultation (with some added highlighting from me):

Inside, you can read the results. Here is one key extract (with my added bold):

Over eight in ten residents (84%) selected one of the 3 options for increasing council tax (2%, 4% or 5%), with half of all residents (49%) selecting the higher 4% or 5% increases, rising to 62% in the MORI survey.

Now contrast this BCC Cabinet meeting - you can see the webcast here. The final final decision has not been made on the budget but... the debate included this comment that the consultation was "the most extensive piece of research we have done our budget" said the officer (Sarah Ashmead) with affirmation from Cllr Tett, leader of the council. "Very interesting that about 50% of respondents have gone for that" [option for higher than 2% rise] he later says.

Later Cllr Janet Blake says something like "we are going to have a bit of problem explaining to the public why we are not going to do it" [go to a referendum] and the "condition of the roads is enough to kill the economy".

But you can guess what the decision finally was... it was not to go for a referendum. In other words not to recognise that the council is our council, spending our money based upon our choices. (Cabinet agenda and papers are here.)

Maybe when I have the time I might listen to the whole debate and be persuaded by the earnest statements around the cabinet table as why a referendum is not appropriate despite the results of the consultation... or maybe not.

But it is comforting at least that Buckinghamshire County Council has this strapline:
Your Council | Your Money | Your Choice
...

UPDATE 131213|0845: Just to add a little more information

During the debate (which you can see via the webcast), it was revealed that a referendum would cost £600k (half on the process and half on sending out new council tax bills if the vote went against the tax increase). This should be balanced against the extra £4.5m to be spent on improving the County's roads which would come from the extra 2% on council tax that would be subject to the referendum. 

I would also suggest that taxpayers should factor in the cost of pot holes to their cars, vans and lorries. A 2% increase in council tax (for a band D property) is under £22 a year. How much does a new tyre cost? What about a new axle?