Anyone showing any remorse over all the community hospital closures?

Who picks up the tab for the increased cost to be dumped on the care homes unlucky enough to be “chosen” as “hot” homes by the end of this week!

How many existing residents will have to be relocated (turfed out of what they see as their home)? – Owl

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

Hundreds of dedicated Covid-positive care homes are to be set up in an effort to keep patients discharged from hospitals from spreading the virus more widely, as happened in the first wave of the pandemic.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has instructed councils to identify homes in their areas that could be used and to have them checked by inspectors to assure infection prevention controls are in place. As many as 500 facilities – sometimes known as “hot homes” – could be designated by the end of November, the equivalent of one or two in each council area.

The move was first flagged in September in the government’s winter plan for adult social care when it said it was developing a designation scheme with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) “for premises that are safe for people leaving hospital who have tested positive for Covid-19 or are awaiting a test result”.

The letter to local authority directors of adult social care, seen by the Guardian, says the Covid homes should be “stand-alone units or settings with separate zoned accommodation and staffing”.

It adds that “given the diversity of existing provision and arrangements, it is acknowledged that there needs to be flexibility to meet local circumstances”.

Before anyone is discharged into one of the homes from hospital with a positive Covid test result, the unit must be registered with the CQC and the regulator will check it has the “policies, procedures, equipment and training in place to maintain infection control and support the care needs of residents”, the DHSC said.

In a clear sign the policy is aimed at freeing up hospital space as well as reducing cross-infection, the homes will not be used for people who contract Covid in their existing care home or at home. Councils have been asked to supply locations by the end of this week and the Department of Health wants every local authority to have access to at least one CQC-designated accommodation by the end of October.

Some care bosses have reacted with concern to the proposal, with some suggesting patients being discharged, albeit with a Covid diagnosis, will be reluctant to enter a hot home and that staff, many earning the minimum wage, will be asked to risk their health by working in one.

The DHSC said councils needed to “ensure that there is repeat testing, PPE, arrangements for staff isolation or non-movement, protection from viral overload, sickness pay and clinical treatment and oversight”.

While a few care homes that opened recently may be only partially occupied and so could be transformed into Covid step-down facilities, the instruction will require others to try to separate staff and residents. Earlier in the pandemic some councils struggled to get insurance to reopen closed care homes to be used for Covid-positive residents.

Sam Monaghan, the chief executive of MHA, the largest charitable provider of care homes in the UK, said he was “highly concerned” about bringing infected people “into close communities where the risk of spread is considerable and you are asking staff to place themselves in the way of potentially contracting the virus as well”.

“Unless you are talking about care home providers who have buildings that aren’t yet occupied, it will mean moving people out of their home, their room,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme. “You would be separating your staff into those working without Covid and those working with Covid and what the arrangements and protections for those staff at the heightened level of risk would be. Then there is the risk of transmission within that geographic space even if you manage to create an artificial barrier between the two.”

A DHSC spokesperson said: “Our priority is the prevention of infection in care homes and ensuring that everyone receives the right care, in the right place, at the right time. Building on the commitments of the adult social care winter plan, we are working with the CQC and the NHS to ensure that everyone discharged to a care home has an up-to-date Covid test result, with anyone who is Covid positive being discharged to a care home that CQC has assured is able to provide care and support for people who are Covid positive.”

Time to move on to the next “game changing” idea? – Owl

Fresh doubts have been raised over “Operation Moonshot”, the government’s £100bn testing plan, after a pilot to regularly test a quarter of a million people was paused then significantly scaled back.

Helen Pidd www.theguardian.com 

The trial, in Salford in Greater Manchester, had been heralded as the first step in a mass-testing mission which Boris Johnson said “would allow people to lead more normal lives, without the need for social distancing”.

All 254,000 residents were to eventually take regular saliva tests – a scientific breakthrough Johnson said would turn round results “in 90 or even 20 minutes”.

But six weeks after the pilot began, it was paused last week and on Tuesday the government admitted it would now be smaller in scale and focused on “high-risk environments and groups”.

Regular testing would only be offered to select residents “in some areas of high-density housing”, said a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

At its launch in early September, the government promised a pilot with up to 250 tests a day that would be rapidly scaled up to cover the whole area, with regular testing at venues across the city.

The Salford pilot would test people “in indoor and outdoor venues”, meaning “workplaces could be opened up to all those who test negative that morning and allow them to behave in a way that was normal before Covid”, the prime minister said.

But sources said the pilot scheme was struggling to persuade even 250 Salfordians to provide saliva samples. An NHS official also admitted earlier this month that more progress needed to be made because the target was not being met.

Addressing health secretary Matt Hancock in parliament on Tuesday, Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford and Eccles, said: “Salford was to be one of the pilot areas testing this Moonshot programme. However, my local council confirmed to me this morning that some time ago now they had asked the Department for Health to share the clinical validity data behind this new technology.

“To date, this query remains unanswered and until this morning Salford city council had been told to pause the programme – so can the secretary confirm his current plans for the development of mass testing?”

Hancock did not respond to her but the Guardian understands that shortly before she stood up in parliament, Salford council was told that the pilot’s pause was reversed.

A DHSC spokeswoman said the project was ongoing. “The pilot is focusing on testing in high-risk environments and groups to prevent and manage outbreaks, and regular testing will continue to be offered to residents in Salford in some areas of high-density housing. The no-swab Optigene LAMP test used in the Salford pilot is ongoing and has already proven to be effective.”

Announcing the Salford pilot on 3 September, the DHSC said it was part of a £500m project trialling next-generation testing technology and increased testing capacity.

Paul Dennett, the directly elected mayor of Salford, said he was told by council officers this week that its part in Operation Moonshot had been paused due to a lack of clarity over the accuracy of the saliva testing system.

“Today, we’ve received new correspondence from the DHSC, after chasing a written update for several weeks, ‘un-pausing’ the community testing project with an emphasis on more targeted testing towards high-risk individuals and communities – as opposed to whole city ‘mass’ community testing being rolled out after a few initial weeks of concept testing.

“We are reviewing the new correspondence … and will come to a conclusion soon, especially given the urgent need to update our residents in the city.”

Farmers have been defeated in their efforts to enshrine Britain’s exemplar food production and animal welfare standards in law after MPs rejected an amendment to the Agriculture Bill which would have banned low-standard imports.

Athwenna Irons www.devonlive.com

Despite protests from campaigners and 14 Conservatives who rebelled to support the protections, the House of Lords clause fell by 332 votes to 279 when coming before the House of Commons on Monday (October 12) evening.

Tabled by Lord Grantchester, it sought a “requirement for agricultural food and imports to meet domestic standards” from January 1, 2021.

Defending the Government’s refusal to back the amendment, Environment Secretary and Cornish MP, George Eustice, said the legal protection “wasn’t necessary” and assurances had already been given to the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) that it would “protect and uphold our standards”.

Speaking on BBC Good Morning Scotland on Tuesday (October 13), he explained: “We have already got legislative processes that protect those standards and so this clause wasn’t necessary to protect those standards.

“We already have a prohibition of the sale of things like chlorine-washed chicken or hormones in beef and that’s not going to change.”

Neil Parish, MP for Tiverton and Honiton and chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) Select Committee, was one of the 14 Tories who voted against the Government to support the amendment, alongside North Dorset MP Simon Hoare.

In an impassioned plea during the debate, Mr Parish said the legislation was heading in the right direction but the UK should be a “great beacon” on animal welfare and the environment when negotiating future trade deals.

“When we’ve tried to amend the Trade Bill, we get told it’s not the place to put it, but it’s not the place to put it in the Agriculture Bill either, so where is the place to put it?

“The place to put it is in this Parliament and I will very much support this and [Richard Fuller, Conservative MP for North East Bedfordshire] does and many on our side do because we want to negotiate very good trade deals – not only with Australia, New Zealand and America but later on, this is not about today or tomorrow, this is about several years down the road.”

Mr Parish criticised Brazilian farming techniques which “destroy the land”, adding: “We, the British, believe in animal welfare, we believe in the environment… so does this Government, but for goodness sake get the backing of Parliament.”

Labour’s Luke Pollard, Shadow Environment Secretary and MP for Sutton and Devonport in Plymouth, also commented: “The Conservatives have again broken their promise to British farmers and the public. No one wants lower quality food on our plates, but there is an increasing risk that this could happen because the prime minister is refusing to show leadership. Labour will always back British farmers and it is a disgrace that the Tories won’t do the same.”

Farmers and industry campaigners in the Westcountry have repeatedly warned of the dangers of opening the UK’s borders to imports of inferior quality, produced to standards not permitted by law in the UK. They say this would undermine and undercut the high standards adhered to by farmers in the South West and across Britain, putting many traditional family farms – the bedrock of the region’s rural economy – at a serious competitive disadvantage.

Reacting to the vote, Devon farmer Jilly Greed, co-founder of Ladies in Beef and the Suckler Beef Producers Association, said South West farmers have worked “incredibly hard” to achieve environmental good practice and high animal welfare standards over many years – which the public “overwhelmingly support”.

Mrs Greed, who farms near Exeter, commented: “To find our commitment and long term investment, so blithely and shamefully voted away by Conservative MPs last evening, is an utter betrayal, including those MPs who chose to abstain.

“It’s Brexit trade deal desperation, at any cost. Do not doubt for any moment substandard crops and beef, illegal to produce here, will be slipped in through the back door.

“The farming community, led by the NFU and president Minette Batters, asked MPs to morally stand up to be counted alongside Neil Parish, Simon Hoare and many others – and do the right thing.

“I doubt the farming community will be quite so trusting of a Brexit-driven Prime Minister when it comes to the next general election and the rural vote.”

Tim Mead, owner of Yeo Valley Organic based in Somerset, described the Government’s refusal to back the House of Lords amendment to the Agriculture Bill as “extremely concerning”, as these aimed to “ensure the standards of food imports, climate change and pesticides and protect the livelihoods of British farmers”.

He continued: “This ruling works against our commitments for mitigating climate change and the green recovery. We need to produce healthy food as nature intended, with increased diversity and bio abundance (for example by not using chemical fertilisers and sprays such as on an organic farm) and the potential to sequester large amounts of carbon into the soil.

“If biodiversity and other sustainability metrics continue to be excluded from the list of conditions for receiving public money it will have dire effects. Putting soil front and centre of Government policy is imperative for the future of our wildlife, the world and its people.”

For Richard Vines, founder and owner of Dartmoor-based Wild Beef, parliamentarians now need to focus their debates on the “integrity of labelling”.

Mr Vines, who sells his ‘beyond organic’, wholly grass-fed and finished beef direct to shoppers at London’s Borough Market and Broadway Market in Hackney, said: “We live in a big world and we already import beef from South Africa and South America, rice and farmed prawns from the Far East and lamb from New Zealand, which would not be reared to the same standards as ourselves. They’re intensively reared and they get on with it, hell or high water.

“What is important is consumer choice. Everybody always talks about consumer choice, but you can’t have consumer choice if you haven’t got honest and highly visible labelling.

“At the moment we do not have that and, to my mind, it’s not acceptable for the country of processing to pose as the country of origin, and to be labelled primarily as that. That is the issue that Parliament should be debating – the integrity of labelling. Currently people do not have choice because they don’t know what they’re buying.

“Furthermore, I feel that we talk endlessly about ethical and sustainable farming, but really the debate should move on to processing. For far too long there’s been a glass ceiling above production. You can produce all the clean, healthy food in the world, but as soon as the processors get hold of it they change it, so that’s another debate that should be had.”

Mr Vines, a former soldier and brewery executive, stressed that farmers need to re-think how they sell their products to the British people. He added: “Rather than banging on about imports from around the world, we ought to be using our energy to sell to ourselves.”

Debbie Kingsley, who rears rare and native breeds of cattle, pigs, sheep and poultry at South Yeo Farm West near Okehampton, wrote on Twitter: “This is not just terrible for farmers as seems to be the response so far. It is a disaster for anyone that eats.”

Meanwhile, the House of Lords amendment proposed by Lord Curry of Kirkhale, which aims to strengthen the powers of the recently-established Trade and Agriculture Commission and give MPs greater scrutiny of its findings and recommendations in relation to future trade deals, was not put to a vote by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

This was dispute over the terms of the ‘Money Resolution’ of the Agriculture Bill, which allows for the expenditure of public money on new laws.

The Agriculture Bill, with its defeated amendments, will now return to the House of Lords and there will be further chances this week for debate.

---

A Correspondent has pointed out that Labour supported all the Lords amendments: 

• Total number of votes on the amendments:

https://labourlist.org/2020/10/mps-reject-labour-backed-amendments-to-brexit-agriculture-bill/

Lords Amendment 11, which sought to limit the use of pesticides to protect the public, was voted down by 347 votes to 212.

Lords Amendment 16, which aimed to maintain British food standards in trade deals, was voted down by 332 votes to 279.

Lords Amendment 17, which sought to improve environmental protections, was voted down by 344 votes to 206.

• Neil Parish’s voting record – he voted against keeping the climate amendment 17, and the pesticides amendment 11

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4072/voting

---

What about “Jumping Jupp Flash” the MP chosen to keep Bojo at a “safe distance” at the “unencumbered” visit to Exeter when Bojo failed to make any promise of funding for the region? How did he vote?

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com 

The British countryside, or at least the seductive popular myth of the rural idyll, has become increasingly vivid in the public imagination as the pandemic continues. Covid has caused many to reassess their lives, and for city dwellers, that often includes where and how they want to live. “What am I doing here, so far from nature?” as one London columnist mused at the height of lockdown.

For urban dwellers with means, whose work allows them to be free from proximity to the office, rural living offers the heady promise of a refuge from the suddenly alarming cheek-by-jowl intimacy of the city, and all its noisy modernity. Fleeing to the country seems to offer respite from pollution, poverty, astronomic living costs, high rents and spiralling Covid infection rates. But is it really the promised land?

A paper by the Cardiff University geographer Andrew Williams and colleagues offers a reality check, pointing out that austerity did not bypass rural England and Wales. It too has seen big cuts to public infrastructure and services. Rural housing has its own affordability crisis. Poverty, so often imagined solely as an urban affliction, thrives, though often hidden, amid the pretty market towns and rolling green fields.

The disconnectedness of rural living may be part of its charm but it is also a driver of inequality, the paper points out. Almost no one in urban areas lives more than 4km (2.5 miles) from a GP – one in five households in rural areas do. It is the same for supermarkets: 44% of country dwellers have to travel more than 4km to get to one, while 59% are not within 4km of a bank. Public transport has been decimated – if you don’t have a car, good luck.

The closure of Sure Start children centres, jobcentres and youth clubs has exacerbated the access problem. Of 605 libraries closed in England since 2010, 150 were in rural areas. They were more likely to be rescued by volunteers in urban areas, Williams points out, “suggesting that the ‘rural’ is not quite the ‘ideal laboratory’ for community-run public services that it is made out to be by proponents of the big society.”

One way rural local authorities have sought to mitigate the cuts enforced on them by central government is by “switching” services such as public toilets and parks to the care of parish and town councils, who raise local taxes to pay for them. Not a problem for wealthy villagers but hardly fair to those who are less well off, who are in effect taxed twice at a time when their incomes have been shrinking as a result of welfare cuts.

Many rural economies are weak, even in the prettiest, chocolate boxy parts. Low wages and casual labour are rife, and the rural premium on fuel and food is eye-watering. Households in rural hamlets with a car spend an average £139 a week on transport, compared with £79 in urban areas. More than 40% of households in rural Wales live in fuel poverty, says Williams, compared with 22% in urban areas. Similarly, people in isolated rural areas spend an average £71 a week on food, compared with £61 in cities.

Fall on hard times, and the nice views may not entirely compensate. Rural benefit claimants are significantly more likely to receive higher-level sanctions than their urban counterparts. Food banks can be few and far between. Devon has one food bank for every 45,000 people; in Cumbria it is one for every 62,000. Williams’ field work brought him into contact with hungry, penniless people forced to walk miles for a bag of charity food.

What is to be done? The mostly Tory-controlled county councils in England have lobbied the government to invest more in rural areas at the expense of (mainly Labour-run) urban areas. It’s not an either-or, says Williams, we need a bigger funding pot. Pitting city versus shire in a bitter fight over the shrivelled local government settlement is no basis for an ambitious national, locally-led, Covid recovery strategy, nor a way to heal the divisions of Brexit. Williams, meanwhile, calls for a new development plan that takes rural Britain seriously: one that reimagines the countryside “in terms of future desires rather than nostalgic myths”.

• Patrick Butler is the Guardian’s social policy editor

The leader of East Devon District Council, Paul Arnott, has offered a scathing criticism of former MP Hugo Swire, following the publication of his wife’s explosive memoir.

Francesca Evans axminster.nub.news 

East Devon District Council leader Paul Arnott (left) has criticised former MP Hugo Swire following the release of his wife’s memoir (pictured inset)

Lady Sasha Swire’s ‘Diary of an MP’s Wife: Inside and Outside Power’ has been described in the national press as “jaw-dropping” and “indiscreet” as she lays bare the secrets of her high-powered Conservative friends, including former Prime Minister David Cameron.

But it is matters much closer to home that led Councillor Arnott to describe the book as a “political obituary for a truly dreadful MP” this week.

Councillor Arnott, leader of the Independent East Devon Alliance, made the comments during a virtual meeting of Colyton Parish Council – on which he also serves – while giving his regular update on district council matters.

He said discussing the book was “probably not appropriate for a formal meeting” but described it as a “hell of a read”.

“I suppose the principal interest is in what was in fact our former MP, before the boundary was changed several years back, Hugo Swire, referring to his own local councillors and faithful party supporters as ‘toilet seats’,” he commented.

Councillor Arnott went on to say that the book had made it “absolutely clear” that Sir Hugo – who served as MP for East Devon from 2001 to 2019 – had “meddled” in the controversial closure of local hospital beds.

He said: “The really serious side of it is that it’s absolutely clear when, against all evidence Seaton Hospital lost its inpatient beds to benefit Sidmouth – even though that wasn’t the recommendation to come out of the committee concerned – it’s absolutely clear from this book that he had meddled, as we had suspected, in that entire matter and he did a bit of grandstanding at Ottery St Mary Hospital essentially to spite Claire Wright.”

Devon county councillor Claire Wright stood against Sir Hugo as an Independent candidate in 2015 and 2017, and against his successor Simon Jupp in 2019.

In her book, Lady Swire said her husband launched a campaign to save Ottery hospital in a deliberate attempt to anger Cllr Wright, as she had been campaigning on the issue for several years.

Councillor Arnott concluded: “I think this is as good as a political obituary for a truly dreadful MP, who won’t be missed by me.”

Sir Hugo told Nub News he “would not dignify any comment made by that man with a response”.

Quote of the day:

“If we follow the science and break the circuit – we can get this virus under control, if we don’t, we could sleep-walk into a long and bleak winter” – Keir Starmer

Paul Waugh www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

When he appeared on the Andrew Marr Show on the eve of his ‘virtual’ party conference nine days ago, Boris Johnson defended his coronavirus strategy with this dismissive swipe at his critics: “We haven’t had any alternative suggestions. No one has come up with any better proposals that I’m aware of.“

Well, thanks to the bombshell Sage document dump of Monday night, we now know that’s an inverted pyramid of piffle. A fortnight before his Marr appearance, his own scientific advisers had indeed recommended a string of bold alternatives, and they were measures that made his piecemeal local lockdowns look both confused and inadequate.

Of course, Johnson’s jibe was aimed not at Sage but squarely at Keir Starmer. Yes, ‘Captain Hindsight’, the ‘flip-flopper’ on school reopening was also chopping and changing his line on supporting the government on Covid. His view of the “sniping, carping” Labour leader conjured up that infamous phrase used by actors about theatre critics: like eunuchs at an orgy, they just don’t get it.

Well, after Starmer’s live televised address (complete with ‘New Leadership’ lectern branding) produced that really big alternative of a three-week Covid “circuit breaker”, maybe the PM should be careful what he wished for. If Johnson couldn’t handle the concept of constructive criticism, he may find out that the destructive kind is even worse.

Now it’s true that Starmer has been monk-like in his adherence to his own gospel of constructive opposition. When I raised with his shadow cabinet minister Steve Reed last month the idea of Labour getting ahead of the government with its own plan for tougher restrictions, he replied: “Labour doesn’t want to add to the confusion by proposing alternative rules that people should or shouldn’t be following at this time. I don’t actually think we should be trying to ‘get ahead’ of the government, that’s playing politics.”

Well, the good folks of Channel 4’s Gogglebox had their own verdict on the limits of that approach. In a memorable rinsing of Starmer’s tactics, normally loyal Labour voters were seen watching him on Marr equivocating over his support for the PM’s policies, and then yelled: “But what would YOU do?!!” Sophie in Blackpool said surely he needed to stop being “Captain Hindsight” and start being “Bruce Foresight” (God, I love a bonkers pun).

Foresight will be Starmer’s new weapon if the PM is indeed forced into a circuit break in a few weeks’ time. If Johnson refuses to heed his call, and hospitalisations and deaths keep rising, the Labour leader will be in a stronger position to speculate that the world could have been different if only his plan had been followed. 

Of course, there is a live lab experiment going on in the sense that Scotland’s own circuit break has been started by Nicola Sturgeon (though on a much smaller scale). If that fails to make an impact, Johnson could well be the one crowing. So today’s announcement is not without risks.

Although Starmer’s move was undeniably a big moment in the politics of the pandemic in the UK, the way he has inched his way towards his current position mirrors the way he nudged Labour towards a second Brexit referendum. Johnson will be hoping that this shift too is as much of an historic mistake for Labour, and he’ll push hard that Starmer doesn’t care about jobs or the economy.

The Labour leader was stunningly vague about the costings of his proposal, apart from a generality that failure to act would cost more money in the long run. His team may argue that in fact many of Rishi Sunak’s own big policies have been unfunded spending commitments, paid by extra borrowing.

Yet with Johnson portrayed as a prisoner of Sunak’s opposition to further lockdown, Starmer gets to kill two birds with one stone with his new announcement. His call for full compensation for businesses closed down in the three-week period highlights the chancellor’s own Achilles heel in coming weeks: the final removal of furlough at the end of October.

At the same time, he is reminding the public that the PM seems to be putting wealth ahead of health. Only today, No.10 told us that the reason Sage’s advice was rejected was because it receives advice not just from scientists but from “economists” and “ultimately for ministers to make decisions”.

There are other political benefits for Starmer too. He’s seen to be the defender of independent scientific advice. He exploits Tory splits (those liberty loving backbenchers were on the march tonight in decent numbers) while offering his support in any vote on a circuit break. He papers over Labour divisions about local lockdowns by creating a unifying, “we’re all in it together” set of national rules. And he also rams home his message that test-and-trace has to stop being a national outsourced disaster zone and start being a locally-run success.

Given that the public have shown in polls they want tougher curbs (YouGov shows a big majority for the circuit break tonight), Starmer is also managing to punch way above the weight of his rump of a party (and don’t forget its numbers in parliament are pitifully low). His emphasis on keeping schools open also underscores that this crisis is not just about “lives and livelihoods” but that third leg of “life chances”.

Most importantly, politics is often about owning the future, and if this comes off Starmer can say he owned it even for a few weeks. Taking the lead of his mayors Sadiq Khan (first to call for mask wearing) and Andy Burnham (first to call for local control of test and trace), he’s also learning that being bold can pay dividends.

Johnson, by contrast, has lost his boldness in the eyes of many of the Blue Wall voters who backed him on Brexit. It was just before that Marr interview this month that the PM said the reason the virus was spiking was because “everybody got a bit, kind of complacent and blasé”. That’s the very charge now levelled at his door in his handling of the pandemic. And Starmer’s biggest alternative of all tonight has been to show the public he’s an alternative PM.