Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust,John Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, Act V Scene V
Like diamonds, we are cut with our own dust.
Details of the amounts that the company that owns Luton Airport gives to organisations in Luton as charitable donations have been made available to the public.
London Luton Airport Ltd (LLAL) is the company that owns Luton Airport. It is in turn owned by Luton Borough Council which effectively means that the airport is in public ownership. This being the case the income generated by the airport is used to provide benefits to the people of Luton.
There are essentially two ways this income is distributed. The profits made by LLAL are paid to its shareholder, Luton Borough Council, and so form part of the overall resources available to the Council to spend on public services. But LLAL also makes a range of significant charitable donations to organisations in Luton. This amounted to £15.995 million in 2013.
Whilst the income gained directly by the Council has formed part of its annual budget which is discussed by Councillors and reported to the public, the openness and accountability around the increasing amount handed out to charities has been a bit lacking. But the good news seems to be that this is changing and LLAL is making an effort to be more open about its activities. Details about its charitable giving, including its community funding policy and the proposed donations for 2014/15, have made available on its website.
Note that LLAL is not the company that operates the airport. London Luton Airport Operations Limited (LLAOL) has a concession agreement with LLAL to manage the airport on its behalf until 2031.
According to the information made available LLAL makes its charitable donations through four programmes;
- The Luton Community Fund which provides small grants to support community and voluntary activity in Luton.
- The Near Neighbour Fund which provides small grants to support community and voluntary organisations in the communities outside the Borough of Luton that are affected by activities at the airport. Which I assume mostly means those affected by the noise.
- The Enterprise Fund which provides small grants to support the start-up of small businesses in Luton.
- The Partnership Fund, which is by far the biggest programme, which provides a significant level of funding to ‘partner’ organisations to support them in delivering the various outcomes identified in Luton’s community strategy.
The proposal for 2014/15 is for the Partnership Fund to distribute £16.404 million. How this will be divided between the different themes in the community strategy can be seen in the chart below.
The reason that the ‘Leisure & Culture’ theme gets the largest pot of money is that this includes the two organisations that receive the most funding. These are Active Luton, which runs Luton’s swimming pools and sports centres, and Luton Culture, which runs the town’s libraries, museums, and arts venues. (A little declaration of interest; I am a member of the Board of Trustees of Luton Culture.)
This second chart highlights the most significant individual grants proposed for 2014/15.
I think that it is important that this information is available and that people can find it easily. These sums are significant ones and so I think greater public understanding and scrutiny of how the money is being used can only be a good thing.
The full details of the charitable donations that London Luton Airport Limited are proposing for the coming financial year as part of its Partnership Fund can be found on this page on their website.
I’ve used the example of the South Shields constituency in the North East several times when writing about the issue of safe seats and how they make a powerful argument for electoral reform (The new MP for South Shields has been chosen, I live in a Rotten Borough, and The South Shields by-election and Lazy Labour) so I thought I’d post this. I will remind you that it is the only seat in existence since the Great Reform Act of 1832 to have never elected a Conservative MP and that the Labour party have held the seat without interruption since 1935.
This video of a report from Channel 4 News of West Country Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg visiting South Shields is mostly a curiosity. I usually find Rees-Mogg intensely irritating — but in this to be fair he does come across as a bit more of an engaging personality. The video doesn’t tell us anything more profound than that the Conservative Party doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anyone elected there — but it is a useful illustration of why our political parties in effect abandon parts of the country.
Really friendly service at Luton @Specsavers this afternoon. Thanks!
So it seems I need to start wearing glasses while working. Not getting old at all…
While writing my post about the refurbishment of a local Post Office yesterday I came across the following graph. It is taken from a briefing note prepared by the House of Commons Library and I think it clearly demonstrates that the coalition government has been responsible for a genuine change in policy towards the Post Office network.
Throughout the 80′s and 90′s the trend in the number of Post Offices is downwards. During the later years of the Blair and Brown Labour governments this trend accelerates. But under the coalition government it flattens out. On this evidence it is clear that in this area of policy the coalition has been responsible for a significant change in direction.
It seems that the Labour MP for Luton North, Kelvin Hopkins, was asked to officially open the newly modernised post office in Hockwell Ring this week. See the report here.
This is a good news story and Kelvin is right to welcome this improved community facility. But I wonder if he also thanked the coalition government whose decisions made it possible? Perhaps not.
But he should. Up until the last general election the only thing that was happening to Post Offices in Luton was them being closed. I had one forced to shut in the ward I represented on the Council. This was all part of the then Labour government’s ‘Network Change Programme’ which included closing around 2,500 branches in an 18 month period beginning in October 2007. A deeply destructive attack on an important community service the impact of which was felt in Luton as it was elsewhere.
When the coalition government was formed it made a commitment that there would no longer be a post office closure programme. A commitment that has been kept. This was a genuine change in policy and in attitude. The role of Post Offices was to be valued in a way that wasn’t the case before.
Plus the government has gone further and, despite the difficult financial circumstances, has invested in the Post Office network. Before he moved to the Department of Health, the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb was the minister responsible for the Post Office. Back in March 2012 he launched a £1.34bn three-year investment and support programme — the largest in the history of the Post Office. This will involve converting and refurbishing around 6,000 Post Offices across the country.
Unlike Labour’s programmes of closures the coalition is carrying out a genuine modernisation of the Post Office network — and this is what has funded the improvements at Hockwell Ring.
The media were reporting (BBC News) on Monday that Chris Rennard was intending to take legal action against the Liberal Democrats over the suspension of his membership. Having previously written about the role of the different bodies of the English Party in the process of this suspension I was concerned to note that the proposed legal action is directed towards named individuals holding party positions. As The Guardian’s report puts it:
The letter keeps open the possibility of holding senior party figures personally liable, because the Liberal Democrat party is an unincorporated association, which means it does not possess “legal personality”. It is addressed to Mike Wheatley, chair of the regional parties committee, Margaret Joachim, vice-chair of the committee, and Peter Ellis, chair of the Liberal Democrats English party. If Rennard won a court action they might have to pay his legal costs and damages.
I think it is important to point out that all three of these individuals are volunteers. They are not employees of the Party. None of them receive any compensation for the work they do for the English Party (except possibly occasional travel expenses). Irrespective of whether these individuals have acted correctly in this matter, and/or acted legally, I don’t feel it is right that they should be under any threat of financial penalty for acting in a voluntary capacity.
The Liberal Democrats as an organisation is dependent on volunteers. Without them it couldn’t operate and often these volunteers take on a considerable amount of responsibility. However, those in such positions are almost always acting on behalf of the Party in a wider sense. So I am troubled that a situation could occur in which individuals can be threatened with legal action rather than the body (in this case the English Party) on whose behalf they are acting.
I think two things need to happen:
- The Party needs to ensure that, if these individuals do end up in a situation where they have to pay costs and damages because of legal action, arrangements are made for these costs to be met by the Party as a whole.
- Where possible the structures and legal status of the Party is changed so that where decisions are made that could become the subject of legal challenge volunteers working within it have greater protection.
I’m not a legal expert and so may be missing some of the subtelties of this situation. Nor do I want to suggest that those in positions of responsibility who act incompetently or maliciously should be protected from the consequences. However, instinctively I feel that it is wrong for those participating within a voluntary organisation to become personally liable in this way.