TOP STORY: The Chancellor has announced significant investment across the South West as part of the Tory Government’s commitment to “level up opportunity” across the nation, reports our Business Editor, William Telford…

The Government has insisted that Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s Spending Review will benefit the South West and help “level up” the UK.

[Depends on what you mean by the South West and how much of this is re-announcement. Read Shadow Environment Secretary’s comments. – Owl]

Mr Sunak, in his Commons speech yesterday, announced significant investment across the South West as part of the Tory Government’s commitment to “level up opportunity” across the nation.

The Chancellor used the Spending Review to boost housing, transport and infrastructure and also announced a new £4billion Levelling Up Fund which will invest in local infrastructure that has a “visible impact” on people and their communities and will support economic recovery.

But there are concerns the measures will not do enough for a UK economy predicted to shrink by 11.3% in 2020, leaving 2.6million people unemployed by next year, and a pay freeze for non-NHS public sector workers will harm the South West.

Announcements specific to the South West included:

• More than £600million in housing infrastructure funding across 23 projects, including £250million for key highways improvements. This includes the relocation of Junction 10 of the M5 to unlock nearly 9,000 homes to the west and north-west of Cheltenham.This is part of the £7.1billion National Home Building Fund which will invest in key infrastructure and provide support for SME housebuilders, to unlock up to 860,000 homes across the country.
• West of England Combined Authority will receive a share of £4.2billion for intra-city transport settlements, enabling them to benefit from long-term, locally-led investment, subject to appropriate governance. The South East will also benefit from major upgrades to the A303 at Stonehenge, dualling the A358 Taunton to Southfields, and improving the A417 missing link.
• The South West will also benefit from a share of the £5.2billion six-year flood and coastal defence programme, including better protection for over 7,000 properties across Bridgwater, Poole and Gloucester.
• The Government also announced that the South West will receive almost £3.5billion in per-pupil funding through the schools block – an average per-pupil increase of 3.6% compared to 2020-21.
• Furthermore, the Spending Review confirmed that 11 new hospitals will be built in the South West, with the continued growth of medical undergraduate degree places, with an additional 196 places in the South West compared to 2017/18.

Mr Sunak said: “We are committed to spreading opportunity to all regions of the UK and this Spending Review delivers on that promise.

“The investment in housing, transport and infrastructure announced today will support the recovery from coronavirus across the South West.

“We will provide billions of pounds in the fight against coronavirus across the UK, deliver the peoples’ priorities and drive the UK’s recovery.”

But Luke Pollard, Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport and Shadow Environment Secretary, criticised the pay freeze for non-NHS public sector workers, and said there was not enough announced that would help the environment.

He said: “The Tory pay freeze is a kick in the teeth for Plymouth’s frontline public sector workers. Police officers, teachers and firefighters all face real-terms pay cuts. It’s all well and good clapping for our key workers, but what they really need is to be paid properly for their dedication.

“This spending review was disappointing for the South West and for Plymouth. The Chancellor’s plans do not match the scale of the crises we face. The scale of the jobs crisis is scary and I am very worried about how many Plymouth families will be out of work very soon.

“There are large gaps in the spending plans especially for funding local services like care services from Plymouth City Council. The Tory plan is not ambitious enough to meaningfully help with our city’s recovery from the deep recession we’re heading into. And there’s no sign of Plymouth getting its fair share in funding yet again.

“The South West seems to have been missed in the Tory levelling up agenda. Tory Ministers are taking the South West for granted. I had high hopes for the new national infrastructure plan but this has just re-announced old projects for the South West. The map for planned investment shows nothing for Plymouth.

“The spending review was almost silent about the climate emergency. Recent green funding announcements unravelled almost as soon as they were made with only £3billion in new money which is barely 10% of what Germany is investing in new green jobs. We need a proper plan for jobs not a wall of Government spin.”

The government spent £10bn more buying personal protective equipment in “chaotic” and inflated market conditions during the pandemic than it would have paid for the same products last year, according to a report by the parliamentary spending watchdog.

[Link to NAO report here]

David Conn www.theguardian.com

But less than 10% of the gloves, gowns, face masks and other products – ordered for a total £12.5bn – had been delivered to NHS trusts and other frontline organisations by the end of July, the National Audit Office (NAO) report found.

Of 32bn items ordered at exponentially rising prices, 2.6bn had been distributed by July. The controversial “parallel supply chain”, rapidly set up by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in March, has still not received much of the PPE it ordered, the report said, “with some of it not yet manufactured”.

According to the NAO, the stockpile was “inadequate” before the pandemic, containing only two weeks’ worth of PPE but the health department then dramatically over-ordered, it was suggested, with the 32bn items amounting to five years’ worth of supply.

Setting out comparative costs for the equipment, the NAO said 760m gowns and coveralls, which would have cost 33p each last year, were bought for £4.50 each, an increase of 1,277%. One million body bags that would have cost £1 each last year were bought for £14.10, with millions of gloves, face masks, goggles and sanitiser also bought at inflated costs.

“The department had to pay such high prices because it was in the position of needing to buy huge volumes of PPE very quickly,” the report said. The total cost of all 32bn items at 2019 prices would have been £2.5bn, £10bn less than the government paid.

The report follows NAO revelations that the DHSC operated a “high priority” route for PPE suppliers with political connections, where bids for multimillion-pound contracts were 10 times more likely to be successful. Competitive tenders were suspended in the emergency.

NHS organisations told the watchdog that they had been able to get the PPE they needed in time, but the report contrasts that assurance with health and social care workers who told their professional bodies and unions that they suffered shortages of vital PPE.

Adult social care providers felt they were “not adequately supported by government in obtaining PPE”, receiving only 10% of their estimated need from the government between March and July, while NHS trusts received 80% of their estimated need.

Office for National Statistics figures show 612 deaths of health and social care workers involving Covid-19 were registered between 9 March and 12 October in England.

The NAO calls for the government to hold a “comprehensive lessons-learned exercise” to consider whether “any issues with PPE provision or use might have contributed to Covid-19 infections or deaths” and to inform planning for future emergencies.

The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group, whose members include relatives of health and social care workers who died after complaining of PPE shortages, has repeatedly called for a rapid public inquiry.

Jo Goodman, the group’s co-founder, said: “The fact that some of our NHS heroes have been lost due to the government’s failure to adequately supply them with PPE is yet another national disgrace which can only really be truly understood with an urgent public inquiry. It is not too late to learn the lessons from the first wave of the pandemic and save lives.”

Jolyon Maugham QC, founder of the Good Law Project which is challenging the government’s procurement processes and several individual contracts, said of the report: “It shows there has been an obscene waste of public money. This was the worst of all worlds, where the government paid five times the normal price, but bought five years’ worth of supply, most of which will never be used. Most striking in the NAO report is the question they don’t answer: why the government procured 32 billion items of PPE in a period in which they only distributed 2.6 billion.”

Health minister Jo Churchill said: “As the NAO report recognises, during this unprecedented pandemic all the NHS providers audited ‘were always able to get what they needed in time’ thanks to the herculean effort of government, NHS, armed forces, civil servants and industry who delivered around 5 billion items of PPE to the frontline at record speed.

“We set up robust and resilient supply chains from scratch and expanded our distribution network from 226 NHS trusts to over 58,000 health and care settings. With almost 32 billion items of PPE ordered we are confident we can provide a continuous supply to our amazing frontline workers over the coming months and respond to future eventualities.”

Having spent most of his short career as chancellor being seen as the nice man who dishes out dosh, it was perhaps no surprise that Rishi Sunak sounded less sure-footed with the tough stuff.‌

Paul Waugh www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

Even as he lobbed some red meat towards Tory backbenchers on public sector pay today, he couldn’t bring himself to use the F-word: freeze. Instead, Sunak said pay rises for non-NHS staff will be “paused” next year.

“Pausing” a pay rise is a euphemism that will stick in the throat of the 1.3 million teaching assistants, school dinner ladies, hospital porters, police officers, soldiers. The pay freeze (George Osborne had no qualms using the F-word in 2010) will also likely apply to council staff like bin men and care workers. In short, that’s a fair chunk of the “key workers” that have kept the country running through the pandemic.

The chancellor did of course try to limit the impact, setting out a £250 rise for 2.1m public sector staff who earn less than the median wage of £24,000. Yet even that seemed undermined by a sleight of hand. When Yvette Cooper pointed out that with inflation forecast to be 2% next year, the £250 would still be a real terms cut, Sunak sidestepped the issue.

In fact, “pausing” appeared to be the overall theme for this spending review. He paused an expected change in the inflation measure that will mean rail commuters and student loans will cost more for more years. The chancellor also paused any progress on climate change (there was virtually nothing on the global emergency that will one day overshadow the covid emergency).‌

And in yet another red meat moment for Tory MPs, Sunak paused the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of its GDP on overseas aid. The cut to 0.5% is for one year, but it’s unclear when the pause in the legal requirement will be restarted, given the only guide was “when the fiscal situation allows”.‌

It’s worth saying that the whole point of the GDP measure on aid was precisely to allow it to go up and down according to the health of the economy. When times are hard, aid spending already goes down automatically. But Sunak opted to go further, with £4bn more in cuts to the world’s poorest. Why? So some Tory backbenchers could dress it up with a depressing “charity begins at home” meme, like a tawdry early Christmas present they believe voters want to take their minds off covid.

Unsurprisingly, instant opinion polls showed that “reducing foreign aid spending” (yeah that word “foreign” is loaded with meaning) was popular. YouGov put support at 66%, opposition at 16%, SavantaComRes had 61% to 13%. Yet no one in government made the case that tying aid to growth has already reduced spending on it.‌

The resignation of junior minister Liz Sugg was an indication that some Tories won’t support a cynical attempt to use overseas aid cuts as a political weapon. Sugg, who worked for David Cameron and knows all too well how slippery Boris Johnson can be, won’t have been surprised he broke his promise to the voters in the Tory manifesto to “maintain” the aid pledge.

Although the aid cut will need new legislation, it’s hard to see how the One Nation caucus of Tory moderates has enough numbers to stop it. Few will forget how the caucus rolled over on the issue of breaking international law in the Internal Market Bill. But as with that bill, the danger (as Tim Montgomerie pointed out) is that “under this PM, Britain is becoming a nation that doesn’t keep its word”.

What really exposed the cynicism of both Johnson and Sunak (he’s meant to be the “nice guy” remember) was the quid-pro-quo of the £4bn aid cut being matched by a £4bn “levelling up fund” aimed at Blue Wall seats. Mansfield MP Ben Bradley tweeted exactly this equation, referring to “areas of the UK that are most in need”.

The fact is that the £10 billion saved by Sunak from partially freezing public sector pay and cutting aid spending was dwarfed by the £394 billion being borrowed to fund all the extra spending. But politically the cuts were about “the feels”. The point was unwittingly underlined by a Treasury “factsheet” on levelling up, that said it was aimed at “helping people feel better off”.

That emphasis on feelings and identity is indeed a reminder that while Dominic Cummings may be gone, his playbook and philosophy remains key to the Johnson government. The “foreign” culture war, the focus on the Blue/Red Wall, the suggestion that the NHS is the only bit of the public services that anyone really likes, Cummingsism lives on.

Yet on Cummings’ other big legacy – Brexit – Sunak was totally, utterly silent. The OBR was however more forthcoming, pointing out that a no-deal outcome would delay a post-Covid economic recovery by a whole year. Even a negotiated free trade agreement will strip 4% from output, the watchdog estimates. But the chancellor, himself a Brexiteer, had no comment.

Speaking of covid, the OBR’s figures today showed the merit of at least one big pause of Sunak’s: his close-run-thing decision to delay ending furlough in October. The extension to spring 2021 will save 300,000 jobs, it found. But ending furlough in March will lead to a 800,000 rise in unemployment, and the new Restart scheme won’t fully kick in next year.

Sunak also paused any decision on continuing the Universal Credit uplift. Though many expect that to come in the New Year at some point (Marcus Rashford is hinting another campaign is on the way), he was not ready to commit to it today, perhaps because that wouldn’t follow the Cummings script.

The biggest pause of all, however, was on the one thing that Tory chancellors are supposed to do: balance the books. The OBR warned he will need to find £27bn of tax increases or spending cuts in coming years, and the IFS said that kind of cash can’t be found without ripping up Tory pledges on income tax, VAT or national insurance.

Add the rising costs of an ageing population and climate change, and the chancellor is facing an almighty challenge. Inflict the pain too early and he risks choking off the recovery, inflict it too late and he gets very close to the next election. But whether he’s in No.11 or No.10 in coming years, Rishi Sunak can’t pause that big decision forever.

Exeter’s Nightingale Hospital will begin treating coronavirus patients tomorrow.

[Contains a good summary of the history and interesting information on costs – Owl] 

Katie Timms www.devonlive.com

The first COVID-19 patients will be transferred from the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital to the 116-bed hospital in Sowton on Thursday.

Construction of the hospital was completed in July and it was originally intended to ‘provide care for patients suffering from symptoms of coronavirus‘.

However, a fall in numbers of cases meant the hospital was not used for its original purpose and had been used for ‘diagnostic testing for a range of conditions’ since July.

An NHS spokesperson has now confirmed that the RD&E is “very busy”, resulting in patients being moved to the Nightingale.

It comes after two more deaths were reported at the RD&E today, bringing the total Covid-19 related deaths at the hospital to 70.

A Nightingale Hospital spokesperson said: “The Nightingale Exeter will accept patients tomorrow (Thursday) who will be transferred from the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (RD&E) which is very busy.

“We would ask that the public continue to observe the Government’s advice on observing the lockdown and social distancing so that we can keep patients safe.”

Responding to the news, Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw said: “Very good news that the Exeter Nightingale hospital is finally opening for patients tomorrow to take pressure off the RD&E hospitals and other local NHS services to cope with unprecedented Covid-19 UK pressures.”

A Freedom of Information request (FoI) in August confirmed that no patients had been treated at the hospital.

Philippa Slinger, chief executive leading the development of Nightingale Exeter, said: “While it remains the case that the Nightingale Exeter isn’t needed for Covid patients, we will be using our CT scanner to help local GPs and hospitals provide people with safer and faster access to tests for a range of conditions, not just cancer.

“The hospital beds are specifically designed for people with Covid needs, and throughout this time the facility will remain ready to quickly revert to our primary purpose and receive patients with Covid, if the number of cases in the region rises significantly.”

It comes as another FoI revealed how much the site in Sowton cost to build.

The exact cost of the hospital – one of seven built across the country at the start of the coronavirus pandemic – was not initially revealed.

An FoI in July showed that the Government spent an estimated £220 million setting up England’s seven Nightingale hospitals, while running costs in April were revealed to be around £15 million.

Details of how much each individual site cost were withheld.

However, another FOI in August saw the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust state that it had cost them £19,807,000 to build the hospital, rising to £22,643,000 when ‘costs incurred by other organisations’ was taken into account.

The ‘monthly stand-by costs’ of the hospital were listed as £409,000.

It was originally planned to be at Westpoint Arena and was scheduled to have 700 beds.

However, the location was changed as plans were scaled down to the current 36,000 sq ft site at a former retail unit.

Sunday saw the UK record another 18,662 coronavirus cases and 398 deaths.

The figure included 141 deaths which were omitted from Saturday’s Government figures in error, and brings the total number of deaths to 55,024.

The British government has banned local authorities from buying up investment property after a near-£7bn spending spree left many councils heavily indebted and at the mercy of a downturn caused by coronavirus.

George Hammond www.ft.com 

Over the past three years local authorities have tapped £6.6bn from central government in low-cost loans to invest in property. That is 14-times the amount accessed over the previous three year period, according to the parliamentary public accounts committee.

The Treasury announced on Wednesday that it was tightening the lending criteria to prevent councils tapping the Public Works Loan Board as a source of cheap finance to fund risky bets.

Before any loans from the PWLB can be signed off, local authorities will now have to “confirm that there is no intention to buy investment assets primarily for yield at any point in the next three years”, according to the government statement.

Councils turned to property investing as a way of trying to generate income without increasing council tax, after deep cuts to local budgets over the past decade.

But the speculative practice has left a number of authorities exposed to the pandemic’s destructive impact on the property market. Since coronavirus broke out in the UK in March, the value of shops, cinemas, bars, leisure centres and offices have plummeted and rent payments have dried up, as retailers and hospitality businesses have been forced to close. 

Earlier this month, Croydon council in south London announced it could not balance its budget after investing in a shopping centre, a hotel and a number of housing developers. The council’s debt load has doubled to £1.8bn in the past three years.

Under the new rules for accessing the PWLB, authorities will also be asked to lay out their planned capital spending and financing plans for the following three years. 

The Treasury said its aim “is to develop a proportionate and equitable way to prevent local authorities from using PWLB loans to buy commercial assets primarily for yield, without impeding their ability to pursue service delivery, housing, and regeneration under the prudential regime as they do now.”

But the Local Government Association, the membership body for local councils, warned that tighter lending criteria might make it hard for authorities to access loans for the delivery of legitimate projects, such as delivering new homes.

“These plans will throw into doubt the future of programmes which help deliver on key government priorities, such as housing and regeneration,” the LGA said.

In an attempt to ensure the PWLB remains an attractive source of finance, the Treasury also said it would cut the interest rate on new loans from the fund, once satisfied those loans were not being used to finance property investments mainly intended to generate a yield. That reversed an October 2019 rate rise, which was designed to dissuade local authorities from borrowing heavily to invest in property.

Planning Applications – 20/1001/MOUT and 20/1003/LBC – Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary

This representation is written as an open letter to all Councillors on the Planning Committee to endeavour to explain the depth of feeling and opinions of residents in Clyst St Mary, who have submitted over 200 objections in total to Application 20/1001/MOUT (including 2 objections from the Devon Branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England), in an effort to assist the Committee in determining their decision on the above applications.

The Applicants have opted to submit a hybrid application, which is very difficult to determine because it combines a full application for the refurbishment and re-development of the redundant offices, which is fundamentally supported by the majority of residents –  but also incorporates inappropriate, outline new residential development proposals that are unacceptable to so many in this small village community. This leaves planners and decision makers with the burdensome task of either refusing acceptable proposals or supporting incongruous, unsuitable elements within the same application. This is considered a manipulation of planning procedures and two separate applications should have been submitted for such a vast developmental masterplan.

This also directly affects the tandem Listed Building Consent Application (20/1003/LBC), which is also supported by residents, to bring back sustainable, commercial uses within the historic assets but cannot proceed without an approval of 20/1001/MOUT.

 Local public trust was lost after the Applicants made major changes to the proposals after the Public Consultation, by adding substantial residential development in Zone A on a local  football ground (after objections – this has now been withdrawn) and by substituting 14 traditional homes with an inappropriate three-storey 59 apartment block in Zone D, opposite the Grade II*Listed Winslade Manor and historic Church (after objections  – this has now been reduced to 40 two/three storey apartments).

The submission of only outline proposals (as part of the hybrid application – 20/1001/MOUT) has also proved limiting and unsatisfactory to enable numerous consultees to advise constructively and the lack of transparency on specific details for the new build fuels anxiety for many in the community that the ultimate growth proposals will be in conflict and incompatible in a rural village community.

Although various mitigating amendments have seen an improvement on the original hybrid application, there are still not sufficient material considerations in favour of the development so as to outweigh the provisions of the Local Development Plan and the adverse impacts of permitting these proposed developments would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In essence, the Applicants seek an intensity of commercial use and new residential use (94 units) that together are excessive in terms of demands on infrastructure and services and will impact on the local amenity and character of this village. Such a scale of development is inappropriate in this location especially as there is no local need for housing because around 100 new homes have already been provided in this village in the last few years.

20/1001/MOUT continues to be contrary to policies in and constitutes a departure from the adopted East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) 2013- 2031 (including Strategies 26B and 7 and Policies 5B, TC2 and TC7), the Villages Plan and Built-Up Area Boundaries, the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan (BCNP) 2014- 2031 and also conflicts with core principles and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, which are all in place for the protection of communities.

The Planning Officer’s own Report, before members, states that this application represents a substantial departure from the Local Development Plan and is contrary to the views of the Ward Member and the Parish Council. The public perception is that copious amounts of public money and substantial time have been expended preparing and adopting development plans that are now being ignored. It appears that greater weight is being afforded to the economic factors within this application, which is proving detrimental to the historic, social and environmental elements, when the National Planning Policy Framework recommends a balance for sustainability purposes.

Zone A is a best and most versatile agricultural green field that was specifically removed by EDDC from the EDLP for development purposes and the proposed 54 new homes constitute a clear departure from the previously-developed brownfield allocation in Strategy 26B of the EDLP.

Zone D proposes excessive quantum, poor design and placement (albeit indicative) in an area of landscape and historic importance. EDDC’s own Historic Conservation Officer stated that the 40-apartment block in Zone D was:-

 ‘totally unacceptable and appears to mimic the modern office development on the site or a student housing block. This should be an innovative well designed scheme being in such close proximity to the listed Manor. This is in the immediate setting of the listed building and still needs considerably more information to be submitted, as previously requested, to assess what will clearly still have an impact on the Manor, its setting and the original historic parkland.’

Even with the amendments of a reduction in height to two storeys at the eastern and western elevations of the Zone D apartments with the visual breaks – this is still an incongruous design, being too high and overbearing, which will overlook residents’ properties in Clyst Valley Road for 6 months of the year, when the screening of the deciduous woodland is lost. The substantial massing and bulk of any apartment block design in this rural and historic setting fails to respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area. The proposals for Zone D continue to fail good design standards and are contrary to the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan Design Statement (Policy BiC 05).

The Applicants need to demonstrate how they are complying with the Government’s 10-point National Design Guide and recently published Planning Practice Guidance for ‘beautiful, enduring and successful places’ to improve the quality and character of this area and not detrimentally impact on the historic buildings and landscape.

Parking in Flood Zones B and J – The Applicants admit that these areas are susceptible to flooding but the planner’s opinion that when flooding occurs, the offices would not be in use, therefore the lack of on-site parking would not be problematic, is disputed. It has been indicated that in such emergencies, the single-track Church Lane could be used as an alternative access to the site, which shows that vehicle users would require parking during flooding? The implementation of major flood relief measures is essential to alleviate the high-risk flooding in Zone B (176 parking spaces) and Zone J (395 parking spaces). Fundamentally, the question to be answered is where will 571 vehicles park during the storms that have been experienced in the past few years? In all likelihood in adjoining residential areas!

Traffic – These proposals conflict with Strategic Policy 5B and Policies TC2 and TC7 of the EDLP. PolicyTC7 states that permission will not be granted to new development if the traffic generated by such would be detrimental to the safe and satisfactory operation of the local or wider highway network. There are still major concerns with traffic from 94 more homes, visitors, services and sports etc which together with the employment use will completely consume and overwhelm the capacity of the local highway network at peak times in an area which already suffers with major gridlock. The development site is not well located in terms of sustainable transport and performs poorly in respect of modes of sustainable transport (walking, cycling and public transport) and no provision to improve public transport to directly serve the site has been provided. Furthermore, the Applicants’ submitted traffic reports have been shown to be flawed under independent traffic expert analyses.

Heavy volumes of traffic at peak times on the A3052 and A376 cause daily congestion around the Clyst St Mary roundabout, resulting in complete gridlock which leads to an unacceptable number of vehicles using the nearby residential roads, in particular Winslade Park Avenue, in an attempt to bypass the roundabout.

The traffic issues have become so acute in recent years that the Parish Council appointed a Traffic and Parking Group to investigate and prepare a detailed report which was completed in December 2019 and presented to Devon County Council. A copy of this report is available on Bishops Clyst Parish Council website here http://www.bishopsclyst.btck.co.uk/Highways

The outline elements of this application seek to establish only the general principles of quantum, scale and the nature of the proposed development which will be acceptable to EDDC. However, this lack of transparency leaves huge voids regarding important details of what will eventually be built on this unique site? Low-rise bungalows could morph into houses in Zone A and inappropriate, towering 40 apartment blocks in Zone D could get two additional storeys added under future proposals for permitted development rights legislation. Community facilities offered to residents at the Public Consultation e.g. the swimming pool, indoor sports/fitness and cafes now appear likely to be restricted to office workers and those living on the site and not the Clyst St Mary wider community, although limited use of some facilities by the school (yet to be agreed) will be beneficial. Therefore, many of the amenities will not be of benefit to the existing Clyst St Mary or wider communities?

The Applicants purchased this complicated site with a full awareness of the planning history and environmental limitations and their comments that the whole development will fail and not be financially viable without the residential elements are unconvincing and equate to requesting planners to ignore planning policy.

This is not an urban environment and this exceptional, distinctive, historic landscape deserves a quality approach rather than one displaying quantity to safeguard and truly enhance this small, rural East Devon village. We, therefore, request that this inappropriate hybrid application is REFUSED.

Gaeron Kayley – Chairman

Save Clyst St Mary Residents’ Association

Boris Johnson’s adviser on ethical standards has questioned whether the prime minister should maintain sole responsibility for the ministerial code days after an outcry over the decision not to sack Priti Patel for bullying staff.

Rajeev Syal www.theguardian.com 

Jonathan Evans, the chair of the committee on standards in public life, said the PM having sole discretion over both launching investigations and deciding to punish an errant minister risked looking like “marking your own homework”.

His remarks come after Johnson was accused of double standards after telling ministers there was “no place for bullying” in the wake of a damning report into the behaviour of the home secretary.

Johnson refused to sack Patel on Friday despite an inquiry by his adviser Sir Alex Allan that concluded she had broken the ministerial code.

The prime minister has sole power both to trigger investigations into wrongdoing by ministers, and to decide on what action, if any, to take.

Johnson’s decision not to sack Patel set a new precedent because previous ministers who have been found to have broken the code have been sacked or resigned from office.

Lord Evans, a former head of MI5, told parliament’s standards committee he was to take evidence on whether to hand both the powers to an independent body similar to those that have been introduced in parliament.

“The triggering of an investigation rests solely with the prime minister. The decision on what action to take about that also rests entirely with the prime minister.

“In the same way that adjudicating those same issues in the Commons or the Lords looks as though you are marking your own homework, the same concerns could be expressed about the way the ministerial code works,” he said.

“There is a problem here … the ministerial code does not have the same independent process which supports the Commons’ code [of conduct] and I think that is an issue which has been overtaken.

“Increasingly – we have seen it in the Commons, we have seen it in the Lords and we have seen it elsewhere – an independent element has been introduced. So there is a kind of mismatch between the expectations of what you would deliver from the Commons and what you get from the ministerial code.

“So I think there’s a question to be asked about whether there should be more independence, whether the investigative element should be triggered independently, potentially and then there’s the separate but parallel issue of what the response to the actual investigation should be.”

Lord Evans said the public would be confused by the fact that allegations of bullying by MPs are investigated by an independent panel, but allegations of bullying by ministers are not.

“If bullying is treated in one particular way for MPs in their parliamentary role then why would you want to handle it differently in their ministerial role?”

He also suggested there should be more options for punishing ministers who break the code, rather than simply whether or not to sack them.

“At the moment it’s rather a binary thing, either you get virtually nothing, really, or you have to resign,” he said.

On Friday, Johnson refused to sack Patel after Allan’s inquiry concluded she had broken the ministerial code following bullying allegations across three government departments.

Allan, the prime minister’s adviser on ministerial standards, resigned from his post after Johnson contradicted his report by vigorously defending the home secretary and keeping her in her role.

One of the justifications Johnson used for defending Patel was the element of Allan’s report that said she had been unaware of the impact of her behaviour because no Home Office official had complained about her.

Sources have said, however, that Allan sought to interview the former top Home Office civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam, who resigned after clashing with Patel, but government officials blocked him.

Offering what she described as an “unreserved, fulsome apology”, Patel has seized on Allan’s finding that she had received no feedback on the impact of her behaviour.

Rutnam, who is suing Patel for wrongful dismissal under whistleblowing laws, issued a statement on Friday that said she was advised not to shout and swear at staff the month after her appointment in 2019, and that he had told her to treat staff with respect “on further occasions”.

An £8million lifeline could be on the way for Exeter Airport after the combination of the collapse of Flybe and the coronavirus pandemic had placed its future in doubt.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

Passenger numbers are down 90 per cent year-on-year and without some financial support, the Airport could have faced the worst case scenario of closure.

East Devon councillors at the end of September had agreed to a further deferral of £180,000 of business rate relief and forward-funding the Airport’s share of the Long Lane enhancement scheme to the tune of nearly £750,000.

But now, regional airports, including Exeter Airport, will be able to apply for dedicated financial support, which will provide business rates relief and cover fixed costs up to £8million per airport.

The scheme will open for applications in January and follows calls by East Devon MP Simon Jupp to help secure financial support to protect the future of Exeter Airport.

Mr Jupp said: “I warmly welcome the decision by Government to provide business rates relief for regional airports.

“I raised my concerns with the Prime Minister and Chancellor after passenger numbers at Exeter Airport dropped by 95 per cent and they recognised the need to support our airport.

“Together with the new testing regime, the government is providing much needed support to help protect jobs and connectivity provided by Exeter Airport.”

The announcement comes as the Government unveils a new testing strategy to reduce the self-isolation period by at least a week.

From December 15, passengers arriving into England from countries not featured on the Government’s travel corridor list will have the option to pay for a test after five days of self-isolation, with a negative result releasing them from the need to isolate.

A spokesman for Exeter Airport, said: “We are pleased the Government has listened to our calls and the campaign led by East Devon MP Simon Jupp to secure business rates relief for airports.

“The measures announced today will provide much-needed support and we will continue to lobby hard and work with Government on what other steps can be taken to safeguard the UK’s regional airports.”

London and the south-east have benefited disproportionately from the installation of new electric car charge points in the last year, amid a push to be ready the UK for the ban on internal combustion engine cars in 2030.

Time to insist that one charging point per XX houses in new developments is the norm? – Owl

Jasper Jolly www.theguardian.com 

The two regions together received 45% of new charger capacity in the year to October, well in excess of their 27% share of the population, according to a Guardian analysis of Zap Map data which shows charging points across the UK published by the Department for Transport.

Every other region received a lower proportion of new charge points installed during the year to October than their population would suggest.

Public car-charging infrastructure was a key part of Boris Johnson’s plans for a “green industrial revolution” published last week. Johnson’s 10-point plan included £1.3bn of investment in car charging, although only £800m of that was new spending. Further details are expected to be outlined in the chancellor’s one-year spending review this week.

The 2030 ban means that all new car buyers across the UK within a decade will need easy access to charging infrastructure, but the current public charging network is already skewed towards London in particular.

There are 63 public chargers per 100,000 people in the capital, more than double the average of the rest of the UK, according to the data compiled by Zap Map. Northern Ireland had the lowest, with only 16.8 per 100,000 people – although other regions with a lower proportion of urban residents may be able to depend more on charging at home in off-street parking spaces.

Matt Western, the Labour MP who chairs a parliamentary group on electric vehicles, said the government needed to address regional disparities as well as ensuring open access to existing charge points.

“What we need is government incentives to put these charge points in place … to provide the incentive for consumers to follow,” he said.

The total number of publicly accessible chargers last month passed 20,000, but there are still 46 local authority areas with fewer than 10 public charging points per 100,000 residents, demonstrating the scale of the challenge ahead to make the whole country ready for electric cars. The RAC has reported a doubling this year in the number of instances where drivers of electric vehicles have needed assistance after running out of charge, because charge points have been out of service, their home chargers have failed to charge overnight, or drivers have run out of charge before reaching a charge point.

Ben Nelmes, head of policy at thinktank New AutoMotive, said: “The transition to electric cars has the potential to contribute to the government’s levelling-up agenda because electric cars are much cheaper to run. Access to a local and reliable public charging network is essential for the one-third of people who do not have access to off-street parking.

“Public funding for charge points should be spent where it is most needed and will provide most benefit to motorists, but cash-strapped local councils often struggle to get the data they need to bid for charge-point funding from the Department for Transport.”

Analysis commissioned by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the UK industry lobby group, suggested the UK would need to build more than 1.9m public charging points by 2030 – well over 500 per day. The bill is expected to be £16.7bn.

Mike Hawes, the SMMT’s chief executive, said government investment so far was “a step in the right direction” but still “only a fraction of the multi-billion pound investment required”.

“The industry invested £54bn in electrification across Europe last year,” Hawes said. “We need others to step up.”

Even before the 2030 ban was confirmed, the move to electric vehicles had triggered a race by private companies.

Chargemaster, bought by oil company BP in 2018, has the largest UK network. During 2020 it has built 31% more rapid chargers, which are vital for topping up on longer journeys, according to Zap Map. However, rivals such as Germany’s Ubitricity and energy provider EDF’s Pod Point are expanding their overall networks faster. No single provider has more than 13% of the market.

The confirmation of the 2030 ban will prompt an acceleration in investment in chargers, according to Nick Ballamy, managing director of EVC, which is planning to spend £150m to install 100,000 charge points over the next five years.

He said he was optimistic that the barriers could be overcome. “The reason the uptake [of electric cars] has been a lot slower is because the infrastructure is not in place,” he said. “People want to be able to buy their vehicles and know they can charge at their convenience.”

MPs from across Devon are united in their relief that England’s second national lockdown won’t be extended – and all calling for the county to be placed into the lowest tier of restrictions.

[Owl is disappointed that there is no quote from from “Marie Antoinette” Selaine Saxby, MP North Devon, who sounded off about local businesses supporting free school meals and no doubt has strong views on tiers] 

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the Commons on Monday that the three-tiered regional measures will return from December 2 and the lockdown will end, but he added that each tier will be toughened.

Areas will not find out which tier they are in until Thursday and the allocation of tiers will be dependent on a number of factors, including each area’s case numbers, the reproduction rate – or R number – and the current and projected pressure on the NHS locally.

Tier allocations will be reviewed every 14 days, and the regional approach will last until March, and Devon’s MPs feel that the area should be placed in Tier 1.

New coronavirus cases across the county are dropping, and only Cornwall, the Isle of Wight, Suffolk, Dorset, West Berkshire, Cambridgeshire and Central Bedfordshire of upper tier authorities currently have a lower infection rate per 100,000 than Devon’s 106.6.

Devon Coronavirus cases as of November 23

At a lower tier level, Teignbridge has the fourth lowest rate of England’s 315 districts, with West Devon, Mid Devon and the South Hams also in the bottom 15, based on the previous seven days’ of figures.

In terms of people who have died within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test, Devon currently has the lowest rate per 100,000 population of anywhere in England.

Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter, said that it was hoped that the area would be in Tier One, but that the Government must publish the scientific basis for the restrictions in the various tiers, if it wants to regain public trust and compliance with the rules.

He said: “Of course, the hope must be that Exeter and Devon are in Tier One, but it is essential that the Government publishes a clear set of criteria for each Tier and for moving between them. The last three tier system did not work and the Government refused to implement an earlier circuit breaker, which is what led to the current four week national lockdown.

“The Government must also publish the scientific basis for the restrictions in the various tiers, if it wants to regain public trust and compliance with the rules. It would be awful if, by making the wrong decisions now, the Government has to tighten restrictions again over Christmas and New Year, just when families are looking forward to the chance of getting together.”

Simon Jupp, MP for East Devon, said: “We should welcome the move from national to local restrictions. We must safely re-open businesses forced to close to help protect jobs and our economy. Devon should be in the lowest tier of restrictions to reflect the hard work and significant sacrifices we’ve made to suppress the virus.

“We must safely re-open businesses forced to close to help protect jobs and our economy. And, as an example, I spoke this week in Parliament about gyms and leisure centres being closed for this period. Can we be certain that closing them to limit coronavirus transmission is worth it on balance? Hundreds of East Devon residents contacted me saying their closure is physically and mentally detrimental to their wellbeing.

“Behind all the charts and graphs, there’s a very real social side to lockdown that no amount of financial supports schemes – however welcome – can replicate. And if we are to consider tighter restrictions again, the government must publish stronger evidence that they protect more lives than they harm.”

Mel Stride, the Conservative MP for Central Devon, said: “Tiering is the right way to go as it will help match the measures taken with the level of threat from the virus. My constituency has been generally highly compliant with lockdown rules and I am hopeful that we might be in Tier One.”

Neil Parish, the Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton, said that he hoped and wanted the region to be placed in the lower tier of restrictions, and that the vaccine news was light at the end of the tunnel.

He said: “On Thursday, of course I want us to be in the lowest possible tier of restrictions, because it means we are doing well at combating the virus here in the West Country.

“The news today about the Oxford vaccine is more light at the end of the tunnel, increasing the chances that we can get out of coronavirus restrictions sooner. I am glad we are returning, next week, to a local tiered approach, but the virus hasn’t gone away yet and we all need to be vigilant this winter.

“I want our businesses to be open and thriving and for people to have safe working and social environments to enjoy. However, even if we are in a higher tier than before, I am particularly pleased to see that places of worship will be open across all tiers, as will recreational sports, and retail too. This is a welcome change – and I think people can look forward to safer, brighter Christmas, after the tough month we have all endured.”

Sir Gary Streeter, MP for South West Devon, agreed that the region should be placed in Tier 1 from next week.

He said: “I am in regular contact with all Plymouth and Devon Conservative MPs and we all agree that the South West should be placed in Tier 1 and we are pressing hard for this. The South West for this purpose includes Bristol which still has significant transmission of the virus and accordingly, we are asking for Devon and Cornwall to be treated as a separate sub-region for this purpose, if necessary. We will find out tomorrow or Thursday whether we have been successful.”

Anthony Mangnall, the Conservative MP for Totnes, whose constituency straddles both Devon and Torbay, said that he would be supported the tiered system, provided the measures are based on accurate information and divided in the correct manner, with him pushing for his area to be in Tier One.

He said: “We have a vaccine and the end of the lockdown is in sight, and now it is about making sure that we are in the lowest tier. I do think it is very important that people recognise, including those in Whitehall, the difference between Bristol and the surrounding areas, and the South West around Plymouth, Devon and Torbay, and our numbers are significantly lower here.

“It is very important that when we come to a tiering system, we don’t get lumped in with places like Bristol as it doesn’t equate.

“I have been perfectly clear, I will not vote for another lockdown. I will support the tier measures, provided they are based on accurate information and divided in the correct manner, and that must be done in a way that reflects what is going on in the ground.

“Now that we have a vaccine, that’s a cause for great celebration but to maintain our personal level of responsibility and keep our own personal preventative measures that we have done so well in the South West.”

Torbay’s infection rates are slightly higher –currently 160 per 100,000, although have also been falling quite sharply, and Kevin Foster, the Conservative MP for Torbay, said: “I welcome the statement today and the news we will exit national restrictions as promised on December 2.”

He added: “This has been possible thanks to the hard work of our NHS and Social Care teams, plus the many residents who have done their bit by sticking to the rules and following the guidance.

“It will be especially welcome to see church services return and many retail businesses re-open in time for Christmas, with the news about a possible vaccination programme giving a real sense of light at the end of the covid-19 tunnel.

“In terms of the next steps in our Bay, it is vital these are guided by the advice of our local public health teams, yet I hope we will soon have confirmation many hospitality businesses will be able to re-open under the tiered system, given we are very unlikely to be placed in the highest tier.”

Newton Abbot MP, Anne Marie Morris, who voted against the second lockdown, said she sincerely hoped that next Wednesday would be the end of lockdowns forever, but her fear is that most of the country will be in tier two or three with very few in tier one.

She added: “In Tier 2 that means no social gathering at home and in tier three no social gathering outside except in public places. With Devon MPs I am fighting for a place in Tier one.

“This lockdown has seen small, family-run, independent businesses closed and pretty much sacrificed, whilst the major out-of-town supermarkets have been able to remain open and make a fortune selling non-essential items.

“It is welcome that collective worship, weddings and outdoor sports can resume, subject to social distancing and that people will no longer be limited to seeing only one other person in outdoor public spaces, with the rule of 6 now applying as it did in the previous set of tiers.

“But being placed in Tier 2 would have a hugely damaging impact on our hospitality sector, with pubs and bars being forced to close unless operating as restaurants. Much like the 10pm curfew, which has quite rightly been extended to 11pm, the Government needs to publish the evidence to show that transmission of the disease in a wet-led pub is any different to that in a restaurant, church, cinema or any other enclosed space.”

She added: “I am enormously concerned with the talk of us having to lockdown in January in order to ‘pay’ for those 4 or 5 days over Christmas. This is utter madness. January is already a miserable time of the year for individuals and businesses, and to lock us all down again would have an even more significant impact not just on the economy but on mental health, loneliness and other non-Covid related health conditions.”

And on whether she will vote for the tiered system, she added that unless the evidence for it comes forward, she would be voted against any further restrictions.

Members of the public complete a test swab during a lateral flow Covid test at Rhydycar leisure centre in Merthyr Tydfil, where mass coronavirus testing begins following a two-week “firebreak” lockdown.

She said: “Serious damage has already been caused by previous lockdowns and restrictions and I simply will not vote for measures that cause further damage to the health and wellbeing (physical and economic) of our community. A tiered system will have such a huge impact on people’s lives, their health and their businesses, and the Government needs to prove that these measures are going to save more lives than they cost.

“Therefore, they need to produce the risk assessment for these measures and prove beyond doubt that they have an overall benefit. So far, that evidence and the necessary assessments have not been forthcoming, and, therefore, I will be voting against the measures. We need long term planning and an exit strategy, not short term, knee-jerk reactions.”

Subject to approval by MPs, the new tier system will take effect from 12.01am on Wednesday, December 2. Areas will find out which tier they are to be placed in on Thursday, before a vote on the new measures will take place, likely to be on Monday.

WHAT ARE THE NEW RULES?

All tiers:

• The tiers will have a uniform set of rules, there will be no negotiations by different regions.
• Everyone should work from home if they can.
• Shops and personal care services can open.
• Early years settings, schools, colleges and universities remain open.
• Registered childcare, other supervised activities for children and childcare bubbles allowed.
• Indoor leisure – gyms and swimming – can open.
• Elite sport, under-18 sport and disabled sport can continue.
• Police will get new powers to close down premises breaking the rules.

Tier 1:

• Households can mix inside and outside, but the rule of six applies.
• Bars, pubs and restaurants must be table service only, last orders at 10pm, closing by 11pm.
• Entertainment can reopen.
• Avoid travel into Tier 3 areas.
• Overnight stays permitted with your household/bubble, or up to six people from different households.
• All accommodation can reopen.
• Places of worship can reopen but more than six people from different households cannot interact.
• Weddings, civil partnerships and wakes can have 15 guests.
• Funerals can have 30 guests.
• Exercise classes and organised adult sport can take place outdoors, but rule of six indoors.
• Elite sporting events, live performances and large business events can take place with 50% capacity, or 4,000 people outdoors/1,000 indoors (whichever is lower) – social distancing applies.

Tier 2:

• No mixing of households indoors apart from support bubbles – rule of six outdoors.
• Pubs and bars must close unless operating as restaurants, and hospitality venues can only serve alcohol with substantial meals.
• Last orders at 10pm, close by 11pm.
• Reduce the numbers of journeys made and avoid travel into Tier 3 areas.
• Overnight stays permitted with your household or support bubble.
• Accommodation open.
• Places of worship open but people cannot interact with anyone outside their household or support bubble.
• Weddings, civil partnerships and wakes can have 15 guests.
• Funerals can have 30 guests.
• Exercise classes and organised adult sport can take place outdoors, but not indoors if there is any interaction between different households.
• Elite sporting events, live performances and large business events can take place with 50% capacity, or 2,000 people outdoors/1,000 indoors (whichever is lower) – social distancing applies.

Tier 3:

• No mixing of households indoors or most outdoor places – rule of six in outdoor spaces such as parks and sports courts.
• Hospitality venues closed, except for takeaway, drive-through or delivery.
• Indoor entertainment venues closed.
• Avoid travelling outside the area other than where necessary, including foreign travel.
• No overnight stays outside local area, unless necessary for work, education or similar reasons.
• Accommodation closed (with limited exceptions such as work purposes).
• Places of worship open but people cannot interact with anyone outside their household or support bubble.
• Weddings, civil partnerships and wakes can have 15 guests – but no wedding receptions allowed.
• Funerals can have 30 guests.
• Exercise classes and organised adult sport can take place outdoors, but avoid higher-risk contact activity.
• Group exercise and sports indoors should not take place, unless with household/bubble.
• Elite sporting events, live performances and large business events banned but drive-in events permitted.

How different parts of England rank on Downing Street’s key considerations for the new system of restrictions.

[Not so much a mutant algorithm as through a glass darkly! – Owl]

By Alex Clark and Dominic Gilbert www.telegraph.co.uk

England will return to a tiered system of coronavirus restrictions when the national lockdown ends on December 2. While for some this will mean greater freedoms than they have enjoyed in the past, more areas will face tougher restrictions than under the previous tier regime.

The Government will announce on Thursday which areas will be in Tiers 1, 2 and 3, but has already briefly outlined the factors that will influence its decisions.

Case rates and surges, particularly among the over-60s, as well as pressures on the testing and health systems will all be taken into account by Number 10, which has declined to give any estimate of the thresholds.

Documents released by the Cabinet Office, however, reveal that “broader economic and practical considerations” will also play a part. 

Here is how local areas in England compare on these five key lockdown metrics. 

How cases fared under national lockdown

England’s worst infected areas have seen significant declines in their case rates since the second national lockdown began, the latest data shows, but other previously low-ranking areas have seen cases surge. 

Oldham was one of the worst infected areas just before the new lockdown on November 5, having already been placed in tier three along with the rest of Greater Manchester.

Though case rates have fallen significantly in the two weeks since, they still remain stubbornly high, suggesting a relaxing of rules may not be imminent. 

While rates have fallen in many areas in the North, they have spiked elsewhere, particularly in the South-East.

Swale and Thanet, neighbouring local authorities in West Kent, are among the biggest risers in the past month. Both areas may face the toughest Tier 3 restrictions when Boris Johnson announces the new lockdown map of England. 

Over-60s suffering in hotspots

The case rate among the over-60s – one of the most at-risk groups for Covid infections – will be high on the criteria when the Government sets out its new parameters.

As the graph below shows, East Lindsey, in Lincolnshire, and Corby, in Northamptonshire, are the worst affected in this demographic.

Both areas are seeing significant increases in the general rate of confirmed cases – up by 137.6 in East Lindsey and 66.4 in Corby compared to the previous week of data.

Both local authorities were in Tier 1 before November 5, but now appear to be at high risk of more stringent restrictions. But in a reversal of fortunes, many areas that had been placed into Tier 3 are now seeing week-on-week falls in the rate of confirmed cases.

In particular, Lancaster seems to have fared well on most of the Government’s criteria. Its case rate among the over-60s is currently 241st of 315 English local authorities at 88 per 100,000, and the general case rate has fallen by 91 per 100,000 over the last week.

Is the testing system coping?

Number 10 will also be looking at how well its testing system is coping in different parts of the country, guided by one key metric in particular – the positivity rate. This stat represents the total number of positive Covid-19 cases as a proportion of all tests carried out.

Countries need to keep this rate below five per cent or risk seeing cases spiral out of control, according to the World Health Organisation. Yet the vast majority of local areas in England currently exceed this limit. 

There is one notable exception: Liverpool. The city has been the scene of a rapid test trial in recent weeks, which appears to have kept the area’s positivity rate below five per cent despite its higher case rate. 

A health system under pressure

Before an area can move down the tier system, the Government will want to ensure that the local health system can handle any fresh surge in hospitalisations.

Areas in the South-West and east of England are in a stronger position in terms of spare bed capacity.

According to the latest data, from November 22, 62 patients in the South-West and 77 in the East are on mechanical ventilation beds. 

Meanwhile, in the Midlands more than 300 mechanical ventilation beds are occupied by Covid-19 patients. London, the North-West and North-East and Yorkshire all have more than 200 patients.

The cost of lockdown

Finally, the Government will also be considering the economic consequences of plunging specific areas into lockdown.

As online job advert data from Adzuna shows, hiring for new positions in England has fallen off a cliff. 

Not all regions have been hit equally though, the data suggests, with businesses in London, the South-East and the East suffering the most. 

On the 3rd of November, Prime Minister Boris Johnson brought in strict new lockdown measures across England. At the same time, Wales and Scotland were already under heavy restrictions. With the firebreak now over in Wales, the introduction of four tiers in Scotland, and the lockdown in England due to be lifted on the 2nd December, I wanted to take a look at what the figures say about the last few weeks. 

covid.joinzoe.com 

Generally we would expect to see an effect on new cases after 10-14 days, with a knock-on effect on hospital admissions and reduced deaths a few weeks later.

So have these national efforts been working?

The answer is… it depends.

COVID-19 rates for the UK are falling, but there are regional differences

The good news is that our latest analysis for the whole of the UK shows that we are past the peak of new COVID-19 cases, which probably occurred before we went into Lockdown 2.0. 

The bad news is that this positive trend masks significant regional differences.

Areas that were under relatively strict tier restrictions in October – including the North East and North West of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – are all seeing a continued drop in the number of new COVID-19 cases after peaking in the second half of October. 

By contrast, the number of new cases in the Midlands has risen steadily since the beginning of October and continued during lockdown. Rates are now higher here than in the North of England, although hopefully showing signs of levelling off. 

The increases over the last month are hard to explain, given that the Midlands has had many areas under tight restrictions for months. It may be due to reduced compliance over time, or a last-minute increase in socialising before the national lockdown.

Areas that were under lighter Tier 1 restrictions in October with relatively low numbers of cases – such as the South East, South West and East of England – showed initial rises during the first two weeks of lockdown, which now have largely plateaued. 

London, which was badly hit in the first wave, has not increased dramatically as feared, apparently peaking at the third week of October and now levelling off.

London

Who is getting COVID-19 across the UK in Lockdown 2.0?

Our data shows that people who fall ill with COVID-19 tend to be younger. The highest rates are in the 20-39 age groups, who are probably most exposed, and the lowest in people over 60. 

Most age groups are showing a decline in cases, except for children and young people under 19 at school and university which are stable.

So while it looks like younger people are driving the current wave of infections, numbers are still relatively low in the older age group that is most likely to become seriously ill or die from the disease, and these numbers appear to be on the way down as well. 

Age groups

However, we shouldn’t be complacent given that up to one in twenty people will suffer from ‘long COVID’, including younger age groups, it’s still vitally important that we all do everything we can to reduce the spread of coronavirus through the UK without crippling the economy, whether mandatory restrictions are in place or not.

How the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app calculates COVID-19 rates

Our figures are predictions about the number of COVID-19 cases based on symptom data provided by over a million weekly users of the app across the UK, combined with the number of local cases confirmed with positive COVID-19 tests. 

Although our numbers track in line with other sources, including the national ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey (which randomly tests households across England), the Imperial College REACT-1 study and official government test figures, we calculate these rates using predictions based on reported symptoms rather than testing alone. 

This means that we include people who are highly likely to have COVID-19 but haven’t been tested or are waiting for results. 

Reassuringly our rapid near real-time data matches the other surveys well. This graph shows how the ONS, Government and ZOE COVID Symptom Study surveys compare, with both our study and the ONS Survey suggesting that we were well past the peak of new infections before the new lockdown started, with our data showing trends a few days earlier. 

Are the restrictions working?

Our data shows that England’s tiered system of COVID-19 restrictions was already working when the decision was made to enter a second national lockdown. The situation is similar in Scotland, with cases falling ahead of the new stricter rules being introduced this week.

Broadly, it looks like things are getting under control, with new cases slowly coming down around the country, although at very different rates depending on where you live. According to NHS data up to November 18th Hospital admissions have stabilised, with the seven-day average beginning to fall for the first time, and a peak possibly reached on November 11th. This cannot be due to lockdown, since this would take at least two weeks to have an effect on admissions, and so reflects changes in infections pre-lockdown. Deaths have also now stabilised since November 11th and, again, this can only be due to decreases in infection pre-lockdown, since it would take at least three weeks for the lockdown to impact deaths.

This should mean that this second wave of infections and resulting hospital cases will decline further and we can return to more modest restrictions in December. Those restrictions should be based on encouraging voluntary behaviour changes and using regional data on new cases and hospital admissions / capacity rather than just projected models.

The ZOE COVID Symptom Study app is providing the data we need

The more people we have using the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app, the more accurate our data about how COVID-19 rates are changing across the UK. 

Collecting data in this way not only gives us information in near real-time, days ahead of the government testing programme, but is amazingly cost-effective. The ZOE COVID Symptom Study costs a fraction of other testing-based survey methods.

Please share the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app with someone else today, to give the UK public the information we need to get through the coming months and back to normal.

Together we’ll get through this – stay safe and keep logging.

Tim Spector

This is shocking – Owl

The head of the judiciary has admonished six Tory parliamentarians for seeking to influence a judge overseeing a hearing this week on whether references written in support of the former MP Charlie Elphicke can be made public.

Ben Quinn www.theguardian.com

The six wrote last week to senior judges, copying in the judge who will oversee the hearing on Wednesday, expressing concern that “matters of principle” should first be considered by senior members of the judiciary and by parliament.

But in a response from the office of the lord chief justice for England and Wales, they were told it was “improper” to seek to influence the decision of a judge who would ultimately rule on the basis of evidence and argument in court.

“It is all the more regrettable when representatives of the legislature, writing as such on House of Commons notepaper, seek to influence a judge in a private letter and do so without regard for the separation of powers or the independence of the judiciary,” said the reply from Ben Yallop, the private secretary to the lord chief justice.

“It is equally improper to suggest that senior judges should in some way intervene to influence the decision of another judge. The independence of the judges extends to being free from interference by judicial colleagues or superiors in their decision-making. Judges must be free to make their decision independently of pressure or influence from all, including legislators.”

The original letter was sent to the president of the Queen’s bench division and the senior presiding judge for England and Wales by the Tory peer David Freud and the MPs Sir Roger Gale, Adam Holloway, Bob Stewart, Theresa Villiers and Natalie Elphicke.

The latter is the estranged wife of Charlie Elphicke, who succeeded him as the MP for Dover before his conviction and jailing this year for three counts of sexual assault against two women.

The other five parliamentarians identified themselves last week as the authors of some of the character references provided for Elphicke’s sentencing, and claimed that publishing the statements could deter people from providing similar background details in future cases.

An application is being made on Wednesday by the Guardian, Times and Associated Newspapers for release of the letters where the author is a public figure, in public office or holds or has held a position of public responsibility.

Where the authors are ordinary members of the public – such as former constituents – the media organisations’ position is that if publication will cause unwanted intrusion into private life, the letters could be anonymised.

The issue has also been raised in parliament by Stewart, who called for a debate. The leader of the house, Jacob Rees-Mogg, told him he had raised a concerning point and said he would refer the matter to the lord chief justice and the attorney general.

The British government has been accused of running an ‘Orwellian’ unit in Michael Gove’s office that instructs Whitehall departments on how to respond to Freedom of Information requests and shares personal information about journalists, openDemocracy can reveal today.

Peter Geoghegan www.opendemocracy.net 

Experts warn that the practice could be breaking the law – and openDemocracy is now working with the law firm Leigh Day on a legal bid to force Gove’s Cabinet Office to reveal full details of how its secretive ‘Clearing House’ unit operates. 

Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are supposed to be ‘applicant-blind’: meaning who makes the request should not matter. But it now emerges that government departments and non-departmental public bodies have been referring ‘sensitive’ FOI requests from journalists and researchers to the Clearing House in Gove’s department in a move described by a shadow cabinet minister as “blacklisting”.

This secretive FOI unit gives advice to other departments “to protect sensitive information”, and collates lists of journalists with details about their work. These lists have included journalists from openDemocracy, The Guardian, The Times, the BBC, and many more, as well as researchers from Privacy International and Big Brother Watch and elsewhere.

The unit has also signed off on FOI responses from other Whitehall departments – effectively centralising control within Gove’s office over what information is released to the public.

Conservative MP David Davis called on government ministers to “explain to the House of Commons precisely why they continue” with a Clearing House operation that is “certainly against the spirit of that Act – and probably the letter, too.” 

Labour shadow Cabinet Office minister Helen Hayes said: “This is extremely troubling. If the cabinet office is interfering in FOI requests and seeking to work around the requirements of the Act by blacklisting journalists, it is a grave threat to our values and transparency in our democracy.”

Details of the Clearing House are revealed in a new report on Freedom of Information published today by openDemocracy. 

‘Art of Darkness’ finds that the UK government has granted fewer and rejected more FOI requests than ever before – with standards falling particularly sharply in the most important Whitehall departments. 

The Clearing House circulates a daily list of FOI requests to up to 70 departments and public bodies that contains details of all requests that it is advising on. This list covers FOI requests about “sensitive subjects” as well as ‘round robin’ requests made to multiple government departments.

Press freedom campaigners have sharply criticised the Clearing House operation and have called for full transparency.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said: “The existence of this clearing house in the Cabinet Office is positively Orwellian. It poses serious questions about the government’s approach to access to information, its attitude to the public’s right to know and the collation of journalists’ personal information.”

Jon Baines, a data protection expert at the law firm Mischon de Reya and chair of the National Association of Data Protection Officers, said that he was “far from assured that the operation of the Clearing House complies with data protection law.”

“Data protection law requires, as a basic principle, that personal data be processed fairly and in a transparent manner – on the evidence that I have seen, I do not feel that the Clearing House meets these requirements,” Baines added.

‘Art of Darkness’: the worst offenders

The new report published by openDemocracy paints a disturbing picture of the state of Freedom of Information in Britain. 

In 2019, central UK government departments granted fewer and rejected more FOI requests than ever before. In the last five years, the Cabinet Office – as well as the Treasury, Foreign Office and Home Office – have all withheld more requests than they granted, according to the report.

The Cabinet Office – which is the government department responsible for Freedom of Information policy – has one of the worst records on access to information. Last year, Michael Gove’s department was the branch of Whitehall most likely to have its decisions referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which regulates information rights in the UK.   

New analysis by openDemocracy also shows that some public bodies are cynically undermining requests for information by failing to respond to requests in any way – a tactic described in openDemocracy’s report as ‘stonewalling’. Decision Notices, which are issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about stonewalling, have increased by 70 per cent in the last five years. Again, the Cabinet Office is a repeat offender. 

The study reveals that the ICO fully or partially upheld complaints about mishandled requests in 48 per cent of its Decision Notices last year: the highest proportion in five years.

Yet the ICO’s capacity to investigate complaints and enforce the Act is diminishing. The regulator has seen its budget cut by 41 per cent over the last decade, while its complaint caseload has increased by 46 per cent in the same period.

The ICO’s enforcement may also be hampered by its governance structure – under which it is accountable on FOI to the Cabinet Office. Michael Gove’s department also is involved in setting the ICO’s annual budget.

Responding to openDemocracy’s questions about the Clearing House, a government spokesperson said:

“The Cabinet Office plays an important role through the FOI Clearing House of ensuring there is a standard approach across government in the way we consider and respond to requests. 

“With increasing transparency, we receive increasingly more complex requests under Freedom of Information. We must balance the public need to make information available with our duty to protect sensitive information and ensure national security.” 

‘Jenna Corderoy is a journalist’

openDemocracy has had first hand experience of how the Clearing House slows down or obstructs FOI requests, and profiles journalists, on a number of different occasions.

In February 2020, openDemocracy journalist Jenna Corderoy sent an FOI request to the Ministry of Defence about meetings with short-lived special advisor Andrew Sabisky. The MoD subsequently complained internally that “due to the time spent in getting an approval from Clearing House, the FOI requestor has put in a complaint to [the FOI regulator] the ICO”. 

The MoD refused the Sabisky request after 196 days, which is more than six times the normal limit for responding to an FOI request.

Separately, when Corderoy sent a Freedom of Information request to the Attorney General’s Office, staff at the office wrote in internal emails: “Just flagging that Jenna Corderoy is a journalist” and “once the response is confirmed, I’ll just need [redacted] to sign off on this before it goes out, since Jenna Corderoy is a reporter for openDemocracy”. 

Today’s findings on the operation of the Clearing House add to mounting questions about the British government’s approach to transparency and press freedom. 

Earlier this year, Number 10 was heavily criticised after it barred openDemocracy from COVID press briefings. The Ministry of Defence was also subsequently accused of ‘blacklisting’ DeclassifiedUK after the department refused to provide comment to the investigative website.

Edin Omanovic, advocacy director at Privacy International said that “the point of Freedom of Information is to access information from individual authorities themselves, not from a centralised body within the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office should not be interfering.”

Silke Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch said, “We’re appalled that such important information rights have been so disrespected by the government. The centralisation of difficult FOIs, the secrecy of this list and the fact that our names have been circulated around Whitehall is seriously chilling. This is a shameful reflection on the government’s attitude towards transparency.”

Long legal battle for transparency 

openDemocracy first asked for copies of the Clearing House lists back in 2018. The Cabinet Office refused this Freedom of Information request but, 23 months later, in July 2020 the ICO finally decided that the lists – including the advice that the Cabinet Office provides on dealing with FOI requests – should be disclosed to the public. 

While the Cabinet Office eventually disclosed some material from the Clearing House list, it is keeping its advice to departments secret and is appealing against the ICO’s decision. 

openDemocracy, represented by the law firm Leigh Day, will now be submitting evidence to an information tribunal hearing to determine whether this information about the Clearing House should be made public. 

According to ICO guidance, a public authority can only look up a requester’s identity if the request is repeated – potentially a vexatious request – or whether the cost of two or more requests made by the requester can be aggregated under FOI.  

The ICO has been aware of the Clearing House’s existence for some time. In 2005, the Clearing House’s annual budget was reported to be £700,000.

The Clearing House was initially housed within the then Department for Constitutional Affairs then later moved to the Ministry of Justice. In 2015, when the Cabinet Office took responsibility for freedom of information policy, the department also took over the Clearing House, despite concerns about its operation. 

The Cabinet Office has previously advertised roles to work in the Cabinet Office’s Clearing House. Specific responsibilities listed for the positions included “creating a weekly FOI tracker of new cases and releases”, and “forwarding drafts for clearance, reverting to departments with advice and negotiating redrafted responses”.  

But openDemocracy’s findings – and the upcoming tribunal case – have highlighted fresh and pressing concerns, including among rights advocates who campaigned for the initial, groundbreaking Freedom of Information legislation more than 15 years ago. The Campaign for Freedom of Information’s Katherine Gundersen has said: “It’s time the clearing house was subjected to proper scrutiny.”

Meanwhile Gavin Freeguard, head of data and transparency at the Institute for Government, said that, 15 years after the Freedom of Information act came into effect, it was not right that the public was still having to fight to access information.

“With delayed responses, more requests being rejected than ever before and these reports of a Clearing House it feels like we’re having to fight for the right to information all over again,” said Freeguard.

“And all this at a time when it’s vital for politicians, the press and the public to be able to scrutinise government.” 

The Cabinet Office organises quarterly engagement meetings and biannual information rights forums with other government departments. openDemocracy sent an FOI requesting materials from these meetings and forums, but the request was denied.

While the government has pledged to invest £100m in supporting public leisure centres this winter, no details of the scheme have yet been made available, with East Devon not knowing how much, if any, they will receive.

[From the cabinet briefing papers here is a link to LED accounts to year ending 31 Dec 2019]

DANIEL CLARK www.midweekherald.co.uk 

A rescue package of nearly three quarters of a million pounds is set to be given to LED Leisure to ensure they can continue to operate as a result of losses incurred by coronavirus lockdowns.

East Devon District Council’s cabinet on Wednesday night [11 November] heard that the forecasted losses from the implications of Covid-19 meant that without additional support, LED’s operations would not be viable, and would likely lead to closing of the facilities, particularly the swimming pools.

While leisure centres in Sidmouth, Ottery St Mary, Axminster, Colyton, Exmouth and Honiton had reopened prior to the second lockdown, as well as swimming pools in Sidmouth, Honiton and Exmouth, Broadclyst and Cranbrook leisure centres had remained closed.

While the government has pledged to invest £100m in supporting public leisure centres this winter, no details of the scheme have yet been made available, with East Devon not knowing how much, if any, they will receive.

The cabinet on Wednesday agreed to recommend to full council that an additional subsidy to LED of £732,275 to reimburse their actual net losses incurred to September 2020 resulting from Covid-19 is paid.

They also agreed that from October 2020 a monthly review and payment is then made until the end of March 2021 to cover further net losses incurred, but that the total of any additional subsidy payment in the current financial year shall not exceed £1,339,000.

In the report to the cabinet, Charlie Plowden, service lead for countryside and leisure, said: “The financial position of LED is outlined in the report including their incurred costs to date and future projected losses as result of Covid-19. If the Council decide not to financial supported LED then their reserves are projected to fall to £14,000 by the end of November, a position which would not be sustainable.

“Clearly East Devon District Council wants to be supporting our leisure provider to enable them to maintain their facilities and events programmes, which contribute towards our shared health & wellbeing objectives. Officers have provided assurance to LED that we would use our best endeavours, subject to Council approval, to ensure that their budget deficit is met

“If the situation becomes worse, then a further update report will be brought back to Cabinet via the new LED Monitoring Committee detailing the options and requirements. In the meantime, all attempts will continue by Cabinet and Officers to recover LED’s lost income from Government, or if a payment is received direct to LED then our funding arrangements will allow us to recover any sums we have paid.”

Councillor Bruce de Saram said closures would be bad thing, but there was a need to ensure sustainable long-term growth and they were fit for purpose in the future. He added: “We don’t want them to close but we need to find the right solution that doesn’t commit us to large funding.”

Cllr Paul Hayward said: “We are where we are and we will be made out to be the baddies if we withdraw the facilities, but we are not even getting the courtesy of a response from government. Writing and getting no response is disgusting and this is the fault of Government who have not thought out the funding process. They are leaving our finances and LEDs on a knife edge.”

Leader of the council, Cllr Paul Arnott, added: “We are walking the tightrope between keeping this going and not wanting to write a blank cheque.”

The cabinet unanimously agreed to recommend to full council to pay the additional £732,275 subsidy to LED Leisure to cover losses to September, and then for a monthly review and further payments to be made which shall not exceed £1,339,000.

They also called for the district’s three MPs to as matter of urgency lobby ministers to ensure leisure trusts receive Covid-related leisure funding equitable to non-trust run leisure centres and to try and hold an urgent meeting with the relevant minister where they can explain the difficulty as a result of failure to provide funding and to demand it is immediately forthcoming.

$64,000 question: which tier will East Devon be in?

Simon Murphy www.theguardian.com 

While the end of the month-long Covid-19 lockdown 2.0 in England will come as welcome news to many, the strengthened tier system with which it is to be replaced could leave some people scratching their heads as they grapple with a fresh set of complex rules. Here we explain how some of the key aspects of the new system – due to be imposed when restrictions end on 2 December – compare with the old one.

Tier 1

From 2 December

Under the new system hospitality businesses in England can stay open until 11pm with table service only but last orders must be made by 10pm, in an effort to stagger departures. The “rule of six” will also remain in place indoors, meaning social household mixing is still allowed.

Spectator sport is set to resume, albeit with limits on numbers and abiding by social distancing. In tier 1, there will be a maximum crowd capacity outdoors of 50% of occupancy of the stadium or 4,000 people, whichever is smaller. Indoors, the maximum capacity is 1,000.

In tier 1, people will be encouraged to minimise travel and work from home where possible. Support bubbles – which allowed a single household to join with another household – are also being broadened across all tiers. Parents with a child under one will be able to form a support bubble, as well as those with a child under five who needs continuous care, such as a child with a disability. Also, in cases where there is a single adult carer, for a partner with dementia for example, they would also be able to form a support bubble.

How was it before?

In the least restrictive tier, also known as alert level “medium”, the rule of six applied indoors and outdoors, meaning up to half a dozen people from different households could gather. Hospitality businesses, such as pubs and restaurants, could stay open but were forced to shut by 10pm – a move that prompted much criticism, including from Conservative backbenchers.

Tier 2

From 2 December

Under the new system, although hospitality venues will be allowed to stay open until 11pm – with last orders at 10pm – only those that serve substantial meals can operate. It means pubs and bars that do not will have to close.

As before, social mixing outside of households or support bubbles will not be allowed indoors. The rule of six will apply outdoors.

Spectators will be allowed to watch sport in tier 2, with a maximum crowd capacity outdoors of 50% of the capacity of the stadium or 2,000 people, whichever is smaller. Indoors, the maximum capacity is 1,000.

Indoor entertainment venues, such as cinemas, casinos and bowling alleys, must also close.

How was it before?

In the “high” alert level tier, faced by Londoners and others, people were prohibited from mixing socially indoors with anybody outside of their household or support bubble but the rule of six remained in place outdoors. Hospitality businesses, such as pubs and restaurants, could open until 10pm but people were only allowed to visit with their household or support bubble.

Tier 3

From 2 December

Hospitality venues will have to close, except for delivery and takeaway service. In tier 3, hotels and other accommodation providers must also close, except for specific work purposes where people cannot return home. Outdoor sports, including golf and tennis, will be allowed to continue in all tiers, as will amateur team sports such as football. Unlike the first two tiers, spectators will not be allowed to watch sport in tier 3.

Across all tiers, shops, personal care, gyms and the wider leisure sector are set to reopen. Collective worship and weddings – with a maximum of 15 in attendance – can also resume.

How was it before?

In the most restrictive tier, known as the “very high” alert level that was endured by vast swathes of the north of England, mixing socially indoors between households – unless a support bubble was in place – was banned. Under baseline measures hospitality venues serving substantial food could remain open until 10pm. Up to six people from different households could socialise outdoors in public spaces, such as parks, beaches or public gardens.

 Boris Johnson sets out ‘tougher’ tiered restrictions for England during Commons debate – video

Sir Desmond asked Boris Johnson: “The last ruler that told us how we may or may not celebrate Christmas was Oliver Cromwell. It didn’t end well, did it?”

Darren Slade www.bournemouthecho.co.uk

A CONSERVATIVE MP has likened the government to Puritan Oliver Cromwell as Britain faces restrictions on its Christmas celebrations.

New Forest West MP Sir Desmond Swayne questioned the prime minister after a Commons statement on the restrictions that will take the place of the current lockdown.

The prime minister said the UK deserved “some kind of Christmas”, but rules on social gatherings have not yet been finalised.

Sir Desmond asked Boris Johnson: “The last ruler that told us how we may or may not celebrate Christmas was Oliver Cromwell. It didn’t end well, did it?”

Oliver Cromwell, who ruled England as Lord Protector from 1653-1658, supported measures that sought to stop the festivities which surrounded Christmas.

Boris Johnson said: “My right honourable friend is completely right in his basic instincts, which I share, and his fundamental libertarian yearnings, which I also share.

“I love Christmas. I love a big get-together. I think the trouble is that the people of this country can see that there is a real risk that if we blow it with Christmas, with a big blowout Christmas, then we’ll pay for it in the new year and they want a cautious and balanced approach and that’s what we will deliver for the whole UK.”

Sir Desmond’s concise question drew praise from deputy speaker Dame Eleanor Laing, who said: “Can I make a plea for all members to be as brief for the right honourable gentleman for New Forest West? Because after two hours we’re not even half way through the number of people who are here hoping to ask questions in this statement.”

The elderly and people with mobility issues will soon be able to walk on the sand and dip their toes in the sea at Sidmouth, if up to £50,000 can be raised for a new beach ramp.

An exciting new project has been launched to design and build an access ramp at Chit Rocks in Sidmouth.

sidmouth.nub.news

The elderly and people with mobility issues will soon be able to walk on the sand and dip their toes in the sea at Sidmouth, if up to £50,000 can be raised for a new beach ramp.

An exciting new project has been launched to design and build an access ramp at Chit Rocks in Sidmouth.

Town resident Dave Rafferty, who is organising the project, said he experienced first hand, as a grandparent, the difficulties of getting onto the sandy beach with pushchairs and toddlers in tow.

Dave has now set a £50,000 target in a bid to pay for the project which has been back by Sidmouth Town Council and East Devon District Council.

NPS South West has also thrown its support behind the project which means the survey and design work can start straight away, and will be funded directly by NPS.

Sidmouth Coastal Community Hub has also agreed to host the project and provide the necessary oversight and banking facilities.

Chit Rocks 1

Donations have started to come in and Devon County Councillor Stuart Hughes has already agreed to support the project and has allocated £1,000 from his locality budget.

Dave added: “We are lucky to be fit and active but none the less struggled with the pebbled beach and steep steps.

“In talking with others who were experiencing the same problem we realised this could be easily overcome with a ramp at Chit Rocks.

“It would allow frail elderly people and anyone with mobility problems to once again walk on the sand and dip their toes in the sea.

“The town and district council were approached for initial advice and with support given in principle, the project launched earlier this month.

Chit Rocks 2

“A Facebook page and Go Fund Me appeal were set up to start raising funds and awareness.

“There is still a long way to go to raise enough funds for construction costs so if anyone would like to donate or support in any way please get in touch by phone.”

The NPS South West spokesperson added: “NPS South West are delighted to support this local initiative and be part of an exciting project to provide a permanent ramp directly onto Chit Rocks sands, providing access for many people who currently struggle or are unable to access and enjoy this lovely beach.”

Contact Dave by calling 07977 064498.

Click here to see the latest updates on the Sidmouth Coastal Community Hub Ramp Facebook page.

East Devon Owl finds common ground with the Fleet Street Fox. Will we see East Devon MPs donating their increase to charity – as Ben Bradshaw does in Exeter?

This government is awe-inspiring.

Fleet Street Fox www.mirror.co.uk

Because just when you think it’s hit a peak of venal scumbaggery which cannot possibly be surpassed, Boris Johnson’s “cabinet of giants” strains its sinews to manage a further feat of breathtaking bastardy.

Just when you thought paying their mates millions was bad, they ‘lose the paperwork’ for up to £18billion of government contracts. When you think paying £50million for an absence of ferries was the worst they could manage, then find they’ve blown £12billion on barely any tests or tracing. And once you have ingested the news of a public sector pay freeze on the grounds of “fairness”, they are wheeled out to defend a pay increase for themselves.

The likes of Matt Hancock have had so much practice this year at twisting truth and language that their necks are no longer made of brass, but pure tungsten. A man who can claim he “threw a protective ring around care homes” by turning them into plague pits can have no issues with taking home 4 times the average pay of a nurse who risked their life mopping up his disasters.

Newspapers have been widely briefed that in Wednesday’s spending review, Chancellor Rishi Sunak will announce a freeze on public sector pay, with the exception of NHS doctors and nurses. The reason is because so many in the private sector have suffered in the pandemic that it would not be fair – and, in tax revenue terms, even harder to fund – pay increases for all 5.4m of the nation’s public servants.

Today it’s been revealed that MPs, on the other hand, are due a 4.1% uplift, equivalent to £3,300 on their basic £81,932 salary. The official line is that, because MPs pay is set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, it’s nothing to do with them, guv. Unfortunately, calling something “independent” does not make it so.

IPSA’s board is appointed, funded, and set its rules by the Speaker’s Committee. It consists of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, chair of the Committee of Privileges Chris Bryant MP, as well as another 5 MPs, and 3 lay members appointed by, you guessed it, MPs.

The definition of “independent” means to be free of outside authority or control. But the system MPs set up for themselves after the 2009 expenses scandal is the same as it had before, when the House of Commons voted on its own pay, except fewer of them get a vote, and there’s less to see. It’s a brilliant example of how a huge scandal led to greater official obscurity.

“Scrutiny, mutiny, it’s all the same to I” (Image: Anna Turley MP/Getty)

The police’s independent review body, on the other hand, includes ex-police, a magistrate, and an economics professor. There’s another economist on the one for school teachers, along with a retired university vice-chancellor, and an ex-headteacher. The one that covers the NHS includes several people who worked in HR, and yet another economics professor. An existing police officer, teacher, or nurse has no say on who sits on those boards, their budgets, or how they make their decisions.

In July, the government decided to honour the pay review suggestions made by these truly-independent bodies for the entire public sector. So nurses are getting 2.8%, teachers 2.75%, police 2.5%.

This was dressed up as a pay rise for their hard work. In fact, it was the pay they deserved for the work their did before the pandemic hit; not a bump, so much as their due. And it came, in many cases, along with cuts to budgets, which means those running the hospitals, schools, and police forces had to decide what to axe in order to fund the ‘pay rise’.

MPs do not have to cut a single thing to afford their own pay rise, not least because there’s fewer of them. And, what’s more, the size of their rise depends on the average weekly earnings of the rest of the public sector. Give coppers a bung they can’t afford to actually pay, then, and it still means cash drops into MPs’ pockets.

IPSA is not clear which formula it uses to calculate all this. Those who’ve analysed MP pay rises say, of the different options, not one appears to have been used consistently. And it may be that overtime payments go into the calculation, which could mean that paying nurses overtime, but no salary increase – for example during a pandemic – increases the average earnings, and MPs then get a bigger salary. and then, of course, bigger pensions too.

It’s too easy to get cross at MPs. Many of them do fine, important jobs over long hours. Most care deeply, and during the past year have had a bigger workload, and with this government more reason to check and argue with every decision.

A pay rise that’s truly in line with the rest of the public sector would be quite reasonable. And while we do not seem to be short of people who fancy being an MP, we ARE short of nurses, teachers and police officers. Ask any of them whether they’d like a pay rise or the resources to do their jobs properly, and most would ask for better budgets.

The reason this pandemic has hit Britain so badly, both in terms of deaths and economics, is because public sector budgets were pared to the bone. The UK had fewer hospital beds, had cut more of them, and had higher occupancy rates of those left, than most other countries in the EU and the OECD. We had a sicker population, with high rates of obesity, respiratory disease, and diabetes, along with cuts to public health budgets, school meals, and community programmes. And when lockdown came, we had fewer police to catch those breaking the rules, which contributed to our second wave.

Had we funded our public sector properly, we would not be so fat, as sick, or get away with being so stupid. We would not need new hospitals, doctors, or police, because we would have enough already. School children would have been armed with iPads, broadband would have been laid on by the state, and all the many harms of this crisis would have been less.

“Seriously, any old fool could do this job. Which job is it, again?” (Image: AFP/Getty Images)

To do that, we would need to pay more tax. And the wonderful thing, for governments, is that if you award a pay rise to the public sector you get tax revenue in return – not only from staff, but from their increased spending, their house sales, their new car. It’s why sane governments make sure they pay public servants properly, and it’s because ours is so damagingly stupid that we’re not doing the same.

At one point during the first lockdown, the London Tube was seeing just 7% of its usual journeys, and the rail network about 5%. Those were the people who kept the lights on – the NHS cleaners, the police support staff, council workers, engineers. It was indicative of how useful they are, and how the remaining 90% of us can do nothing without them. There’d be no newspapers without lorry drivers, no food in the shops without road repairs, no medicines without dockers, no public safety without prison officers.

We have all suffered, this year. And we’ll be even poorer still if we don’t reward those – public or private sector – who have done the most to ensure we made it to Christmas. That means money for the NHS, not for private healthcare to overcharge for clearing the waiting lists; funding for school meals, not Boris’ school mates; and the same rules for all, whether it’s millions of of public sector staff or 650 MPs.

As it is, what we’ve got is a ruling class that is “independent” only of us, and that’s not the deal we agreed.

Court reporter www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

PUBLISHED: 15:06 23 November 2020 [Note: case published by Owl 30 October]

A former Mayor of Exmouth has appeared in court accused of historic sex assaults against two boys in the 1990s and 2000s.

Alderman John Humphrey, who was a Conservative East Devon councillor for 12 years until 2019, pleaded not guilty to ten charges at Exeter Crown Court.

The allegations relate to sexual assaults on two boys between 1990 and 2002.

Humphreys, of Hartley Road, Exmouth, denied three counts of committing a serious sexual assault, and two of indecent assault on a boy between 1990 and 1991.

He also denied five counts of indecent assault against a second boy between 2000 and 2002.

Judge David Evans set a trial date of August 9, 2021 and released Humphreys on bail.