axe in hand

Gov scraps Solent Devolution bid … without telling all three councils, says Pompey and Soton (updated)

This in from Portsmouth City Council, in their own words. Ed


Council Leaders across the Solent region have expressed their shock and disappointment at news the government has dismissed the area’s devolution bid.

The three council’s involved in submitting the bid for a Solent Combined Authority in 2016, the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton, have had no formal notification but found out from Portsmouth South MP, Stephen Morgan.

MP: “2016 devolution deal is not on the table”
Mr Morgan was advised the Solent proposals were no longer being considered in a letter from Devolution Minister Jake Berry which said: “the 2016 devolution deal is not on the table.”

Mr Morgan said:

“I was very disappointed to hear the devolution plans were no longer being considered and even more disappointed that the government hadn’t even told the councils. This scrapping of our bid without notification is a kick in the teeth for Portsmouth and means our city missing out on millions in much-needed funding.

“The Solent region has the potential to achieve so much more, but it needs government to finally give us the funding and power we need. The devolution plans were a vehicle for this. If the government is intent on ignoring them, they must step up with an alternative. I’ve been raising questions with ministers to get to the bottom of this and will continue to lobby government to back our city with proper funding.”

Government letter to former leader
Since the revelation, the government has claimed a letter from the Prime Minister to then Portsmouth City Council Leader Cllr Donna Jones was notification the deal was not being considered, however the letter did not clearly state this and nothing was sent to Southampton City Council or the Isle of Wight Council who were joint partners in the bid.

£900m over 30 years
The proposed combined authority would have taken on responsibility for services currently managed by central government and received £900m of new funding over 30 years.

This would have allowed decisions to be made locally rather than in Westminster, with a focus on driving economic growth, improving infrastructure and transport links and delivering homes in the region.

These benefits would have been the starting point for the Solent with further powers and funding expected to be added as a combined authority established itself.

Vernon-Jackson: “Beyond disappointing”
Council Leaders in the area have expressed their disappointment at the news the region will not be gaining new powers and funding.

Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson, Leader of Portsmouth City Council, said:

“It is beyond disappointing that the government would dismiss something that so much work has gone into without even the courtesy of notifying the three councils that submitted it. We have heard the reason is because MPs in other parts of Hampshire didn’t support the bid and without a majority the government couldn’t risk upsetting them. Government is prioritising the opinions of those few individuals over the views of more than 2,500 local people who responded to the consultation on the plans and showed clear support.

“Devolution would give a huge boost to Portsmouth and the surrounding area with more financial autonomy and the power to make significant changes to meet our specific economic needs. Previously the government was pushing this as the solution to meet the needs of our area but if they have now dismissed it they need to provide something to take its place and provide the investment we need.”

Hammond: “Extremely disappointing “
Cllr Christopher Hammond, Leader of Southampton City Council, said:

“Almost two years after we submitted our proposal to the government, I’m pleased they have apparently provided a written response – although they have not yet had the courtesy to write directly to the local authorities involved.

“After all the hard work that was put into a compelling and workable bid it’s extremely disappointing that they have apparently decided not to proceed with the deal which would have benefitted the lives of local people.

“I’d like to thank all the local residents who took the time to take part in our consultation, and assure them that we will continue to make the case for greater powers and funding to be moved from central government to our city and region.”

Hook: “Denied opportunities”
With the benefits from Solent devolution expected to stretch beyond the boundaries of the three councils who submitted the bid, neighbouring authorities have also expressed sadness at the demise of the plans.

Cllr Mark Hook, Leader of Gosport Borough Council, said:

“Devolution has the potential to bring real tangible benefits to the Solent region including Gosport and its residents.

“It’s disappointing that government has ended this process and Gosport Borough Council hasn’t even had a deal on the table to consider being part of and been denied the opportunity to deliver the economic boost our town deserves and needs.”

Cllr Keith House, Leader of Eastleigh Borough Council, said:

“Only through handing powers back to local areas will we ever be able to join up jobs, housing, transport and health. England has the most centralised decision-making in Europe. It’s a step backwards for government to pull the plug on devolution.”

Stewart: “It must be right for the Island”
Leader of the Isle of Wight council, Cllr Dave Stewart, said,

“I am happy to discuss devolution or any other form of governance option but I’m very clear, it must be right for the Island and properly recognise its unique opportunities and characteristics.

“It seems to me we need to create a new form of partnership with government, based on collaborative and robust local arrangements, which keep local government at the heart of the public services transformation agenda.”

Article edit
12.55pm: Comment from Dave Stewart added

Image: sterlingcollege under CC BY 2.0

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
3 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Colin
17, February 2020 12:34 pm

Normal rubbish from IWC. And we are paying the Director of neighbourhoods how much for this? Is this one of the £100,000 plus positions created last year? What a waste of money.

George
17, February 2020 12:43 pm

For the responsible Director not to know what is in the Island Roads contract is inexcusable. Are Councillors and the Chief Executive just going to shrug their shoulders?

Steve Goodman
Reply to  George
18, February 2020 3:16 pm

Probably (they are still doing that instead of responding to the Coroner at David Green’s inquest six years ago – as reported here OTW and elsewhere… For more relevant OTW reporting, going back to our initial concerns about the PFI pushers in 2011, a search could start under “Golden Pothole”)

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Steve Goodman
19, February 2020 2:09 pm

The Private Eye reporting of the island’s PFI “pantomime” also continues: Rotten Boroughs, p.18 of the latest issue (1516).

kerry
17, February 2020 1:00 pm

If 30% of the work hasn’t been completed, is there a penalty clause? Or at least will 30% of the money be repaid, or with held until completed? I think Council Taxpayers should be told.

henry
Reply to  kerry
17, February 2020 1:26 pm

A very good question! If there was no penalty clause then there is no incentive to complete the work to the appropriate standard in the time frame.

Phil Jordan
Reply to  kerry
18, February 2020 10:00 am

There are penalty clauses. In general, they have not been applied in any meaningful way and scope in comparison to the level of contractual failures.

Some capital payments have been withheld as far as I am able to understand

… but monthly unitary charges have continued at the (roughly) contracted terms compound rate without obvious reductions.

johnr
17, February 2020 1:25 pm

A lot of the roads that have been ‘resurfaced’ with no more than a skim of fresh tarmac were not even planned off beforehand and now all the faults that were covered over need addressing as the ‘new’ tarmac is breaking up. So perhaps they need the extra 4 years to repair what has already been done once. The big question is, why are the Council so… Read more »

laurentian
Reply to  johnr
17, February 2020 1:47 pm

Those dratted Limited Liability clauses?

chartman
Reply to  johnr
17, February 2020 3:32 pm

unenforceable ????

Murun Buchstansangur
17, February 2020 2:10 pm

Perhaps we shouldn’t moan so much when Government cuts local council budgets. They clearly don’t have a clue how to spend our money. At least these days they have less of it to fritter away.

ricco
17, February 2020 2:20 pm

All there resurfacing work is failing as they are only replacing the top 10mm tarmac surface to around 50/60mm depth when they should take out enough to replace at least 100mm of 20mm base as well hence all there new road surfaces cracking badly. Maybe its a quality control problem from the Highway inspectors rather than the surfacing gangs?? Rubbish either way as usual for the island.

islandliving100
Reply to  ricco
17, February 2020 5:19 pm

The PFI contract specification is at fault here. Old IOW roads were glorified cart tracks, surfaced with bitumen. If the PFI works were to do things correctly, at time of writing the specification, a decent sub-base of 100-200mm should have been specified on most main roads, resurfaced with new tarmac and adequate new drains installed. Sadly, none were and hence why long term we’ll be back to… Read more »

confidential
17, February 2020 2:44 pm

Eurovia aka Island Roads have simply failed to meet their contractural responsibilities.
The IW Council has let them get away with it!
Exactly how many roads have been ‘’rebuilt’ as opposed to skimpily resurfaced?

smiffy
17, February 2020 2:45 pm

To the lay person this news report is very, er, foggy. It does not reflect the state of the main road out of East Cowes which is poor for a major artery. Drivers take a driving line according to the position of potholes! I’d like to understand what Mr. Rowland is saying but it is not clear. It needs to be.

chartman
Reply to  smiffy
17, February 2020 3:34 pm

Especially up by Osborne House…

Benny C
17, February 2020 2:51 pm

And where is Councillor Ian Ward – nowhere to be seen. He is accountable for delivering this initiative, and yet he turned up at a scrutiny committee a while back unable to provide even basic performance numbers. That isn’t being accountable. That is being wholly inadequate in role. Expensively, embarrassingly so. Councillor Ward has had years to get to grips with this. Meanwhile, Having admitted he doesn’t… Read more »

Geoff Brodie
17, February 2020 3:01 pm

Of course the Scrutiny Committee is only allowed very limited information due to all the confidentiality clauses signed off by former Tory leader (now local Tory association chairman) David Pugh and his colleagues back in 2013. Scrutiny & Opposition councillors are not allowed to know what penalties have been imposed. All we know is that everything that was due to be paid to Island Rogues within the… Read more »

Phil Jordan
Reply to  Geoff Brodie
18, February 2020 9:52 am

Geoff, to be very clear about this unfolding ‘scandal’… We have the payments made to IR over the past few years (since about 2015 ) and they clearly demonstrate that very, very few penalties have been imposed since 2017 (which is when the ‘management of the contract’ problems roughly began)and those that have do not relate relatively to the potential penalties deriving from the scope and extent… Read more »

Mike Starke
17, February 2020 3:41 pm

“Misinformation and mischief-making” was how a predecessor of Cllr Ian Ward in the PFI hot seat described the warnings by myself and my late friend and co-campaigner against the benighted project, John Wortham, about the “Emperor’s New Clothes” nature of the IW council’s 25-year trip to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

confidential
Reply to  Mike Starke
17, February 2020 3:55 pm

Would that be Ex Cllr Edward Giles who told us all how all our roads would be”rebuilt” within seven years?

Mike Starke
Reply to  confidential
17, February 2020 4:36 pm

It most certainly would. Who better to oversee the completion of what was billed as the Island’s biggest-ever civil engineering contract than a rural solicitor?

Mike Starke
17, February 2020 4:19 pm

…Cont’d: I’m not surprised at the latest in a long line of crises for the PFI since it’s start on 1 April 2013; John Wortham and I predicted them all – and more – before the wretched contract was signed in August 2012. It’s not surprising there is a lack of clarity over the scope of the PFI, as the goalposts have shifted so many times, they’re… Read more »

Spartacus
17, February 2020 5:25 pm

Terminate Island Roads contract, all they ever do is blame somebody else when things go wrong or hide behind red tape. Somethings not right here residents demand more transparency, there’s a cover up going on. It’s not just the roads that are of concern what about inadequate drainage and water running everywhere. Shame on all you Councillors you need to get your priorities right and truly represent… Read more »

tyke
Reply to  Spartacus
17, February 2020 6:52 pm

Right, sorry to gatecrash the party and introduce some facts but… The final business case – the document highlighted by Mike Starke and that which the IW council members (including Geoff Brodie) signed up to – does not mention the need to resurface 90 percent of roads. Secondly, Island Roads has met all the milestones it needs to. That’s why it has not has not been penalised:… Read more »

Benny C
Reply to  tyke
17, February 2020 9:12 pm

Would that be the document Ian Ward said he hadn’t read? I absolutely agree we have a bunch of Councillors who don’t even seem to understand the high level basics of what’s been signed or how this all operates. That’s woefully inept for such a large commitment. It should be Ian Ward or Dave Stewart leading positively on this with clear and relevant public statements. Maybe they… Read more »

Phil Jordan
Reply to  tyke
17, February 2020 9:39 pm

I’m afraid that’s simply not true. The Method Statement that accompanied the main contractual documents and was part of the successful tender process pre-contract commencement actually does specify the amount of roads across the island highways network that were to be resurfaced/rebuilt during the CIP starting in April 2013 as being 91% -93% of the total kms ( approx 700 kms). I have seen that document. It… Read more »

confidential
Reply to  Phil Jordan
18, February 2020 9:04 am

Well said Phil Jordan.
The IW Council contract financial control system clearly requires a fundamental overhaul.
Contract payments being paid to contractors by the IWC irrespective of contract target achievement is scandalous.

Sounds just like the Floating Bridge procurement debacle!

Totally unacceptable, heads should roll.

Geoff Brodie
Reply to  Phil Jordan
18, February 2020 9:44 am

Of course Phil is one of the few councillors and ex-councillors who has seen the contract. Someone whose explanations should be read carefully. I certainly do.

tyke
Reply to  Phil Jordan
18, February 2020 11:45 am

And you Phil were lead member for the Highways PFI for how long, three years?
Certainly long enough to know that a ‘method statement’ is different to a contractual obligation.
Blind leading the blind indeed.

Simon Cooke
Reply to  tyke
18, February 2020 12:05 pm

The Method Statements – although completely redacted – form part of the ‘contractual obligation’.

This is from the beginning of the contract:

1.1 This contract comprises:
1.1.1 the Main Body;
1.1.2 the schedules; and

1.2.4 schedule 3 (Method Statements) and schedule 21 (Service Provider Programmes);

Phil Jordan
Reply to  Simon Cooke
18, February 2020 2:17 pm

Simon, thanks as always, for that confirmation. Saved me digging out my old papers and notes!

Phil Jordan
Reply to  tyke
18, February 2020 2:19 pm

See Simon Cooke’s post below…

tyke
Reply to  Phil Jordan
18, February 2020 6:08 pm

Phil. A simple Google search will tell you (or anyone else) that a method statement is altogether different to a contractual requirement. I repeat the simple facts that seems to be beyond the grasp of the usual suspects: Island Roads has met all its contractual milestones and there was never a contractual requirement to resurface 90 percent of roads. That might not fit the conventional narrative but… Read more »

Simon Cooke
Reply to  tyke
19, February 2020 12:49 am

I suggest you Google ‘Reductio ad absurdum’.

Phil Jordan
Reply to  Simon Cooke
19, February 2020 9:52 am

Indeed Simon.

The schedules are enshrined in the contractual agreement and part of the scope and parameters of the Island PFI contract.

tyke
Reply to  Phil Jordan
19, February 2020 10:12 am

You can slice it any way you like, Phil. Fact is Island Roads is not contractually required to resurface 90 percent of roads.
It really is that simple.

Simon Cooke
Reply to  tyke
19, February 2020 12:39 pm

Are you trying to hide behind semantics? A few roads might not have needed ‘resurfacing’ or whatever, but the point is that the Core Investment Period was intended to bring the vast majority of the road network up to an agreed standard. Not sixty-odd percentage, but the vast majority – or ninety plus percentage as Phil stated. Indeed it was literally built into how the PFI deal… Read more »

tyke
Reply to  Simon Cooke
19, February 2020 6:29 pm

I am not trying to hide behind anything, Simon, least of all semantics. And yes, I am sure of the position because it’s there for all to see. The simple fact is that an output spec contract such as the one in hand requires the roads to be brought up to an agreed standard. It does not dictate the percentage of the network that need to be… Read more »

Simon Cooke
Reply to  tyke
19, February 2020 9:09 pm

But it isn’t there for all to see, is it? The exact opposite in fact. The CIP requirements in the contract remain secret, so you cannot possibly be sure of anything. Your scenario is completely at odds with the repeatedly stated aims made in many, many IW Council Meetings and Documents as well as Island Road documents that a ‘vast majority’ or ‘most’ of the Project Network… Read more »

Benny C
Reply to  Spartacus
17, February 2020 7:04 pm

That’s part of the problem. It can’t be terminated easily. Woolly contracts signed (Despite the presence of expensive advisors) by foggy clients protect PFI profits nicely at the expense of islanders who are now being told they aren’t getting compensated for the 30% underperformance (30%!) but instead they’ll be waiting longer and stumping up more money for the Island Roads profit machine. So, effectively , the message… Read more »

prof
Reply to  Benny C
18, February 2020 7:28 am

Ian is not totally consequence free – his own road is one of the bodged ones that is failing.

laurashales
17, February 2020 7:59 pm

IWC are always all over the Island Roads contract. They have a big savings target to meet. If there were things in this contract they could enforce, they definitely would.

tyke
Reply to  laurashales
17, February 2020 9:04 pm

Steady on Laura, you are talking sense. You’ll be a pariah before you know it.

Benny C
Reply to  laurashales
18, February 2020 11:02 pm

That’s not what the seemingly switched on site foreman i spoke to last year claimed. Quite by chance I asked him about the Councils management of their teams and how it worked in terms of progress and quality control. He told me the IOW team he dealt with were ‘absolutely hopeless’ and ‘quite often don’t turn up when they are supposed to’. I’m sure operational management says… Read more »

kirkauld
17, February 2020 8:11 pm

All good points raised however here in Wootton Bridge the question is simple “ when are our roads going to be done and can we see the plan Island Roads will be following to do it!” Our road plus many others is deteriorating with the thin layer of tarmac wearing away to expose the concrete which in turn is breaking up … what do we pay our… Read more »

wighton
17, February 2020 11:51 pm

“2nd best roads in the country”….er, WHAT?!?!?!

sibaskett
18, February 2020 12:08 am

Mr Rowland what planet are you on ?? Second best roads your having a laugh.
Try travelling around the island everyday, some of the resurfaced roads are horrendous and it’s not the resurfacing gangs fault they are doing as instructed. Think Second best roads is quite fitting !!!!!!!!

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined