Gambling with £800 000 + of OUR money

• Failed Charity Scheme £130 000 spent with no tangible benefit.

• Proposed budget for Private Bill £410 000- does not guarantee success

• £306 000 is to be borrowed from a restricted fund ( What happens if legal and Parliamentary Agent costs exceed £306 000?)

• 25-year repayment term @ 6% interest

• Total: c. £600 000

A further £104 000 from general funds is earmarked for:

• additional staffing,

• internal administration,

• public consultation and other costs

• Total cost of Private Bill is already in excess of an eye watering £825 000

Officers have not capped the budget, so cannot guarantee that the costs quoted will ‘get the job done’

Precept payers have already been committed to the above costs without our consent.

“No member of the Public has seen a copy of the draft Bill; this is crucial as it is the detail that matters.”

As we have not seen the draft Bill beforehand or will see it after the Consultation, we have no way of assessing whether or not any responses from this Consultation will actually feed in and impact upon the content of the Bill.

“From 1884 Malvern Hills Trust (Conservators) has been and is a Public Body; in 1984 for VAT reasons, MHT chose to register as a charity too.”

Since then, it has had dual status, acknowledged by a 2002 document and in 2011 Report following the St Ann's Well affair. In 2019 Annual Review document written by last Chair states:

‘Like that of many Public Bodies…….’

“MHT is a Public Body by virtue of being in receipt of substantial funds by the levying of a Precept on the Public.”

 It is therefore bound by Public Law obligations so that confidence in Public Bodies is not eroded.

“Duties of a Public Body in respect of a Public Consultation”

Include:

-To act in a fully transparent way

-To consult widely at a formative stage of proposals

-To take full account of all representations made as a result of consultation (ie. To act fairly and reasonably with the public)

Any actions by a Public Body which undermine the confidence of the Public is NOT acting in a fair or reasonable manner.

“The Consultation is primarily about seeking considerable extra powers which if granted will give MHT absolute control over the area without debate.”

p. 27/27 To seek power to do…..  Mention is made of 23 extra powers being sought.

Those are in addition to other powers mentioned in the Consultation questionnaire.

What benefits do the Public obtain from this Private Bill??

It seems that the Public will be the losers, paying the Precept and losing all rights to a democratic vote with loss of Trustee representatives and any say in how our money is spent.

No case has been made as to why all these extra powers are required.

“The Consultation questions are ‘loaded’ ie. Designed to elicit the response required. They are at best ambiguous.

For instance

Qu. 8. Meetings of the Trust should be open to the public when a binding decision is to be made

If the answer is ‘agree’, no issue, BUT if you want to disagree, what are you disagreeing to. Are you implying then that Meetings of the Trust should NOT be open to the Public or that Meetings should not be open to the Public when a binding decision has to be made.

OR

Q. 23. The ability of individuals to require personal notice of the exercise of the Trust’s power to put up a temporary fence should be removed AND a requirement on the Trust to publish notices on its website be added.

Agreement is straightforward, but disagreeing is not. If you disagree, are you disagreeing with the first part of the question, the second part or the whole of it. There are two questions but only one set of answer boxes.

The Public Consultation guidelines stipulate that information to stakeholders

 -should be easy to comprehend, clear and concise

-should be in an easily understandable format,

- should use plain language and clarify the key issues, particularly where the consultation deals with complex subject matter

The current Malvern Hills Trust Consultation is none of the above.