I’m delighted to have been selected again by Labour members in Western Ward as candidate in the May 2011 elections.  Here are some of the things that motivate me, and why I hope you will again trust me with your vote.

Continue Reading

The Tory leader of Swindon Council has used his privileged position to write a weekly column in the local paper for party political ends. He trots out again the misleading percentages of alleged Labour rises in Council Tax when he should be arguing for a better deal from government.

Continue Reading

Swindon’s Government grant is down £7.1 million for next financial year starting April 2011 compared to that for the current year – which itself was cut part way through by £1.4 million.  The administration trot our numbers of £15 Million a year savings, sometimes more than that:   however, much of that is expected growth in demand that must either be avoided or be implemented at the expense of cuts in other services.

Continue Reading

At the Full Council meeting on 11th November, Cllr Des Moffatt and Cllr Derique Montaut moved and seconded the following:

“In light of the continued failure by Forward Swindon Limited and its predecessor organisation to deliver regeneration to any part of Swindon beyond that enabled by public sector funding, Council invites the Chief Executive to take a report to Cabinet outlining the effect of abolishing Forward Swindon Limited, with the duties in economic and regeneration being brought under the direct management of the Group Director of Environment, Regeneration and Community, reporting to a single politically balanced group without Executive Powers.  Council requests that the Chief Executive further reports details of what savings there are to be realised on the £1.2 million revenue funding from the public purse (for which SBC currently contributes £760K) of Forward Swindon Limited.”

Contrary to the local paper headline, the Labour Group does not seek to end regeneration.  This is what Des said in moving the motion.

Voting for this resolution is not as perceived, it is not voting to abolish Forward Swindon, it is asking for a root and branch review cutting through the hype and re-examining the value for money of the process in light of achievements by Forward Swindon and its predecessor’s efforts. We have had far too many written and verbal ‘artists impressions’ and no delivery.

It was Sue Bates and Mike Bowden who in 2002 set up the New Swindon Company and they did that to take advantage of the regeneration money available from the then Labour government, and there has been success in that with the help of the then Labour MPs.

That has now run its course it seems to me.  When we examine what has happened, apart from that funded from public purse there has been no private sector investment worth getting excited about.  That the College site design is better than nothing has been the argument used to the critics of detail of that design. The British Home stores redevelopment was opposed initially by the redevelopment company. Not everyone is convinced Juries Inn is of fundamental benefit to the Swindon economy and was probably very little to do with any regeneration initiative anyway.

I have made it my business to try and find out exactly what it is the regeneration company does and even though I probably know more than most outside of the inner circle of the administration with the exception of Cllr Nick Martin, I haven’t done very well in that. Did you know for example that Forward Swindon still doesn’t have a board even though the decision to set it up was approved by cabinet on the 10th of March.

Oh I am quite sure that Forward Swindon employees individually are diligent and capable people but as a team they have failed. Like Liverpool football club, changing the manager might not be enough, we have had changes of the chief executive, we may need to change the ownership as well.

I was quite surprised to learn just how much of the work one would think was the job of the regeneration people  is actually done by Swindon Council’s direct employees.  Planning, traffic impact, finance, property and much more remain the remit of Council officers.

We are saying that the time may be now to consider bringing the whole shamozzale back in house. After all we have missed out in the successor organisations to the Regional Development Agencies. Local Enterprise Partnerships, nothing is left for us.  Wiltshire and Gloucester, and their centres of population are our direct competitors it strikes me.  There is nothing new in being on our own.  We have always fallen between stools, the M4 corridor development or the South West.  In the past we have used this to our advantage by giving business direct access to our public service officers and we can again.

Contrary to the mantra of some, practical and genuine doers in commerce and industry want to talk to the leading civil servants of the area, and prefer to do that without amateurs like us getting in the way.   I include most of the front bench in that description. Our principle officers should talk to industry without us getting in the way.

What we must do in my opinion is focus on what’s best for Swindon, and to do that I believe we need to empower the people who work directly for Swindon Council and whose personal success is bound up in Swindon’s success and not dependant on the networking that can be achieved in the regeneration circuit.

Then there is the undoubted saving to the public purse, and in particular Swindon’s public purse, in bringing this activity back in house.  A visit to Bridge House would give members a taste of what is available, relative to, for example floor 3 in Watt Tyler House and new ways of working.

Cllr Des Moffatt

Some of us considered the Tory budget in Swindon as irresponsible in that they under-funded Adult Social Care and put £2.5M into general reserves in the expectation that it would probably be needed to top up Adult Social Care.

That stupidity has come home to roost with a vengeance.

While it could be contended that the very fact Swindon had £2.5M in general reserves as well as the recommended £6.0M in reserves any Whitehall official looking simply at the numbers would be forgiven for assuming Swindon was in a strong financial position and levied heftier cuts against Swindon than anywhere else. I don’t advocate that line because it may not be quite true. It is much more likely that the formula used for local Government grant worked against us again, as it has done right from the creation of Swindon Unititory Council.  Another factor is that our reliance on specific grants (achieved by Sir Michael Pitt working with the then Labour MPs) has caused us to fare particularly badly in this round.

What needs to happen is for Swindon to quietly lobby for a fundamental change in the distribution formula.  Shouting at the Parliamentarians has not worked and will not work.

The facts are that Swindon has lost £1.4 million revenue in the current year,  much of which is specific grants.  Just less than £1.2 M of this  is in children’s services other than education (welfare) – a blanket percentage reduction across about 20 budget heads.

Another area if difficulty arising from local Tory creative accounting is in ‘forward planning’. Three years ago the people who worked on structure pans and the land use plan for the Eastern development were transferred to the LABGI grant.  LABGI was a specific grant to help Councils that were in the business of expansion and regeneration and indeed it appeared legitimate at the time to move planning employees on to this organisation.  Now that LABGI has  gone there is a need to find an extra £300K in to retain this planning service.  If this is not done there will be even fewer controls on developers in and around Swindon .  Tho’ perhaps this is not a problem for the market forces fanatics in the Tory Party?

There are two potential problems for communities.

• Derique Montaut introduced Homeline to Swindon, 1984, the first in the country,  following an elderly person’s decomposing body being found after 3 months in a bungalow in Highworth.  That or something like it can happen again if Adult Social Care does not have the staff to follow up every lead of a vulnerable elderly person.
• The reductions in specific grants in Children’s services could mean that vulnerable and abused children slip through the net. Indeed most of the specific grants were put in place as result of previous tragedies such as Baby P.

Lastly the national cuts that are being introduced are part of Tory doctrine and have little to do with the economy.  World leaders have lost the influence of Brown, and his understanding of how to avoid the depression that followed the 1930s stock market crash.   We may be reverting to a new form of protectionism.  Cameron’s Tories have started a race to the bottom and Vince Cable seems to have forgotten that he used to agree with Gordon Brown.  Just where is the Liberal Democratic brake on Tory dogma?  Do you remember this LibDem poster!!

Cllr Des Moffatt

This post gives the recent history of Swindon Council’s attitude to Swindon Dial a Ride (SDAR) service.   The Council’s Value for Money Review (5th October 2009) contains unspecified legal advice recommending cessation of the Grant to SDAR, and appears to have triggered the proposed reduction of £50k in grant aid contained in Swindon Borough Council’s draft budget early this year.  This was opposed by all  and was subsequently dropped.  At least, so it appeared at the time.

Most of us relaxed when the Conservative group amendment to a labour resolution at the Full Council meeting of was unanimous.  But someone has been beavering away in the background, sharpening the knife avainst SDAR, but keeping a low profile until the election was safely out of the way.  The first the Labour Group knew of the decision to submit the service to a full tender regime was when the special Procurement Advisory Group (PAG) meeting agenda was published.  I suspect most members of the Council were equally surprised!

Swindon Dial a Ride did respond in detail to the Value for Money report, but have been denied access to officers to discuss a Service Level Agreement (and much else) ever since 2006.  Council Officers have  failed in their duty to attend any of SDAR board/management meeting for over two years.  Had they done so the efficiency and value provided by SDAR wwould have been crystal clear to them. SDAR also provided independent legal advice to the effect that grant aid for a registered charity involved in the transport and care of disabled people did not come under Article 87 of the EU treaty; again I have a copy of that advice.

My own first reaction was to challenge the Councils legal advice and Officials supplied it to me after checking at the highest level.  I was astounded that the advice was dated 25th January 2010.   I suspect any reader will note the significance of the date that the Council passed the supportive resolution unanimously. I am not at liberty to divulge the contents save to say that I regard the advice as having been ‘invited’.

The EU legislation is titled ”On public passenger transport services by rail and by road“.  As its title makes clear it deals with public passenger transport – not a service which exists for people who cannot use public transport!!

However, as I have said to the Labour Group and I am quite clear about it, it would be a bold elected Councillor indeed who ignored their own legal advice.  Should the Council fail now to proceed to tender and a disgruntled alternative operator chose to contest the grant award and win, Councillors would arguably be personally liable “jointly and severally” –  now there’s a phrase to conjure with.

We are where we are,  and I am content that some Tory members will seek to protect the service by ensuring that any tender document is not ‘tweaked’ and that SDAR gets a fair chance to compete despite unseen enemies.

Cabinet and Lead members make the decisions on behalf of the Council. The Procurement Advisory Group is tasked with ensuring that the Council receives the best service for the most competitive price. Quality of service matters, and so does the unintended consequences that might be missed by others.  Penny wise and pound foolish some call it.  The PAG process is carried out in stages, and to say that to say that “PAG passed it” misrepresents what PAG is about.

Clls Des Moffatt

p.s. Its interesting to note that WiFi did not go through the Procurement Advisory Group.

The Leader of the Council, Roderick Bluh stated that the MP Ann Snelgrove had made misleading comment in the adjournment debate in the House of Commons.

What she did say is on public record and my own knowledge led me to believe she had not misled Parliament.  The only area where I had no direct knowledge was the statement that aQovia was an IoM registered company.

A family friend researched aQovia at his own expense and found there are three companies registered, one in the UK and two in the Isle of Man.

On re-looking at the briefing note supplied Scrutiny Councillors on December 14th 2009 it clearly states that the shares in Digital City are 40% owned by aQovia (UK).

My friend had previously downloaded the registration document of Digital City from Companies House (he has since checked and it remains unchanged) and it clearly states that the share ownership is 4 shares of a total of 9 owned by aQovia Ltd and has an Isle of Man address.

The details of the ownership of aQovia that are available would appear to suggest that it is an off-shore holding company and that the published secretary is an enabling person only. It is noted that the stated project manager for aQovia a one is Muhammad Ifran Malik who holds 10% of the shares and the secretary is Sarah Kilduff of the IoM address holding 90% of the shares. On searching for Sara Kilduff on the web, we can only find adverts for secretarial services for hire by her.

My thanks to Chris Watts in helping me download for my own assurance the share allocation of Digital City yesterday which remains unchanged. The ‘family friend’ is well known to Talkswindon and it is for him to fess up that he knows me.

The Scrutiny decision, exact wording will come later.  Cllr Tomlinson junior proposed that a decision of Scrutiny be deferred until members were satisfied regarding who was a director of what.
Cllr Tomlinson senior, amended that officers give assurances required and the cabinet decision be supported.  Cllr Moffatt (me Labour) was not content and demanded, that there also had to be clarity that due diligence was being done now as it clearly had not been done and that we needed to be satisfied on the provenance of any investments by a third party and that there was compliance with British law. No-one contested those remarks and the vote was taken.  Cllr Tomlinson senior amendment was lost 5 votes to 4. Cllr Tomlinson junior substantive motion put and carried 6 votes to 3.

In conclusion I believe that Scrutiny did its job properly last evening.

Des Moffatt.  For views of the original documents, contact me on 07709066707

This is my best recollection of what I said at the Council’s special cabinet meeting on 31/3/2010 on the WiFi project that the Swindon Tories have got themselves mired in.

Following a preamble, where I criticized the accuracy of the agenda item report proposing a further draw- down of the loan of £450K to Digital City,  I responded to Councillor Bluh’s criticism of the Labour group’s alleged failure to define the reasons why we thought the process of making a loan to Digital City was outwith proper procedure.  I reminded Councillor Bluh that I had made the following points during the first scrutiny meeting on December 15th 2009.

1. The resolution used to authorise delegated powers to officers relates to regeneration of the Town Centre and dates from 2008.  It is an abuse of process to use this resolution to justify making a loan to Digital City since the resolution dealt with Treasury Management and enables the Council to pump-prime redevelopment in the town centre,  should the opportunity present – at the then start of the economic downturn.
2. CIPFA rules (CIPFA being the government backed rules by which officials engaged in public finance operate) stipulate that credit ratings should be obtained before any loans are made.  This was not done.
3. There are only three ways to make a decision on financial matters not catered for in the budget, these being (a) proper delegated officer authority, (b) by lead member/s decision note (circulated to opposition shadow lead members and ward members if appropriate) and (c) a cabinet decision on a prepared report.
4. What had happened here is that in exercising delegated authority the paid staff of the Council had sought political cover by getting the leader of the Council and the lead member for resources to sign off on a briefing note.

I went on to say:  ”That is the past, what is before you tonight is the officers seeking political cover before exercising a delegated power.  My colleagues are all of the opinion that WiFi should be supported as a concept. I do not share that view,  I believe you are being asked to throw good money after bad. The claim that there are good results on performance ignores the most important performance indicator:  paying customers for the scheme are nowhere near the target.  The jury is still out on whether this will work.   Please reconsider your intentions.”

Following input from Councillor Bluh, I replied for the record that, “I believe that the paid staff of the Council, including Hitesh Patel, sought to defend the position of Swindon Borough Council given the political instructions they were under.”

At the end of the debate Councillor Bluh implied that we and others sought to maker the issue political.  However he had orchestrated the politicization by inviting a national figure of the Conservative party to launch the scheme, flanked by the two Tory Swindon Parliamentary Candidates.

Des Moffatt,  Councillor Western

A meeting took place on 10 March 2010 in Western Community Centre to discuss invasive car parking in Harcourt, Cobden and Iffley Rds.  All three Western Councillors and Council official Bob Sanders attended.

22 residents were present.  Kevin Small introduced the Cllrs and the officer and set the scene.  Parking during the day in many of the streets off Ferndale Road was becoming an increasing problem for residents, and in particular for the people in Harcourt Road. The Council had put yellow lines on the Hawksworth estate road against the express wishes of all three of the Ward Councillors, and this had made matters much worse.  A wide ranging discussion went on for over an hour.   Several ideas were considered.  Residents parking permits were rejected mainly on the basis of cost (£40 for the first car and a further £90 for the second car), then having to buy visitors permits to “park in our own street”.  Bob Sanders gently ventured “its not your street” or words to that effect at some point.  A single yellow line was considered for a limited period of the day so that parking-up early in the morning and returning in the evening was not possible by the Park and Walk brigade.  This was also rejected, though not so vehemently.

Questions were asked regarding the lawfulness of using cones to reserve one’s place.   Kevin answered that as a Councillor he could not advocate it, but could understand residents being driven to this.  Putting notices in and on the windows of local and intruder cars was considered.  How polite they might be was not determined, but there was not a decision to do this.

A view was expressed that the Council should solve this problem and stop “Wasting our money on grand schemes like a Canal going nowhere”

Kevin put forward the idea that the Council should open up the Oasis overflow and the remainder of the former Clares site for a park and walk.  Officers were actively considering this and residents were keen for it to be followed up.

The extreme difficulty of emerging from Cobden Road to Ferndale Road was raised.  Jim Grant explained he had pursued this with vigour a couple of years ago, and suggested the installation of a mirror.  Officers had rejected this at the time.  Bob Sanders explained that the use of mirrors was informal and no Council anywhere could sanction them.  Indeed if they were erected the Council would have to remove them.

So, few clear conclusions came from the meeting (“If it were easy we would have done it already”),  but residents did support Kevin in driving forward the idea of using the Clares site for day-trippers.

Report by Cllr Des Moffatt

Advertised here only 3 years ago

Regular readers will remember that over two years ago Anchor decided to evict the residents of this Elderly Persons dwelling and sell it.  We know that they have had offers from another Housing Association which they rejected on the grounds it did not give them enough profit.   It is a disgrace that this building, built on public land with public money less than 25 years ago has been left empty all this time. We do not hold front line staff responsible for this.  Michael Wills MP drew our attention recently to the annual report of this Housing Association and the fact the man in charge of it had received £391,000 pay and extensive pension contributions.  The local media were informed but chose not to run the story. The detail is available here.

Your MP wrote to Anchor regarding this disgrace but to date there has been no constructive reply.  Like the bankers, personal greed has overcome common sense in some Housing Associations.  For more information contact Cllr Kevin Small.