“There’s absolutely no way in which anyone can say that’s austerity – we’re spending more money on public services than we were.”

That’s what the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, asserted last November.

www.independent.co.uk 

But in the wake of this week’s Budget, a host of respected public finance analysts are arguing that austerity does indeed seem to be returning to the public realm thanks to the decisions of the chancellor.

He didn’t mention it in his Budget speech, but Mr Sunak’s plans on Wednesday included a roughly £4bn-a-year cut in the day-to-day spending budgets available to Whitehall departments starting in 2022-23 relative to previous plans.

This is the money, technically known as “current spending”, that civil servants and ministers use for employing staff, running general operations and delivering routine services, ranging from social care to policing, to the British people .

This followed a £10bn a year reduction in those budgets in last year’s spending review.

The implication of all this is that, by 2023/24, these budgets will be some £16bn lower than they were projected to be before the pandemic struck.

Given total day-to-day departmental spending totals of £377bn in that year (up from £321bn in 2019-20), £16bn might not sound a particularly large sum.

But with large “protected” spending departments such as health, defence, and education having already received significant multi-year budget increases from the government, any cuts to the overall spending envelope would be felt disproportionately by unprotected departments such as justice, the Home office and local government.

The Treasury delivered a spending review – which sets spending limits for individual Whitehall departments – last year, covering the 2021-22 financial year.

There will need to be another spending review this autumn covering at least 2022-23 and possibly the following two fiscal years as well.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Treasury’s independent spending watchdog, pointed out this week that the reduction in the overall spending envelope pencilled in by the chancellor this week implies that after health, education, defence and overseas aid have had their promised increases, all the other unprotected departments are now facing a 1 per cent real terms cut in the upcoming spending review.

In other words, for these public services, austerity will be back.

Moreover, it was these unprotected departments that suffered the biggest cuts in public spending during the years in which George Osborne was chancellor after 2010.

Departments such as local government, work and pensions, and transport saw their day-to-day budgets more than cut in half in real terms.

While protected departments’ budgets are set to be 10 per cent higher in real terms by the middle of this decade, the budgets of non-protected departments are apparently destined to remain almost a quarter lower on their levels in 2010.

“For those public services it will feel very much like George Osborne is still the chancellor,” says the Resolution Foundation in its post-Budget report.

The Treasury has offered a technical justification for its latest £4bn cut, claiming that it reflects lower expected inflation, and implying that departments won’t need as much cash to deliver the same level of service.

But analysts say those inflation forecasts have been badly distorted by the pandemic and that there’s no evidence departments will need any less money to meet the demands on them.

“This isn’t just a mechanical change and presenting it as such means the chancellor isn’t really levelling with people about the choices the government is making to repair the public finances,” says Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Analysts see the £4bn-a-year cut as a means of ensuring that the government’s overall day-to-day budget is back in balance by 2024/25 on current forecasts and that the national debt is falling as a share of the economy.

In other words, to signal fiscal responsibility (by his own definition) four years into the future, the chancellor is willing to cut some important public services starting next year.

But what analysts find most alarming about that choice is the context.

The pandemic revealed a health service with zero spare capacity and a public health system grossly unprepared in areas like PPE stockpiling.

And, as the OBR notes, the government has itself said there will be an ongoing need for vaccination infrastructure when the crisis is over.

The crisis has also ripped a hole in the education of millions of children and exposed the lethal inadequacy of our social care system.

And yet the chancellor set aside no more money for the health or education sectors this week. Nor was there any more money for local government, which largely funds social care.

All these sectors are likely to need more money as a result of the pandemic, rather than less.

“The chancellor’s medium-term spending plans simply look implausibly low,” says Mr Johnson of the IFS.

And the OBR calls the need for more money for public services “one of the most significant risks to the medium-term fiscal outlook”, implying that the chancellor might, in the end, just have to spend more on public services than his current plans.

If this is right, a return to austerity could prove not only undesirable but undeliverable too.

And there’s another lesson of the past decade of austerity: ministers can point all they like to rising overall public services spending, but when supply fails to meet rising public demand, the result is not pretty.

Context – Cornwall  is one of the most economically deprived areas in Northern Europe. Between 2014 and 2020, Cornwall received over €1,000 (£800) per person from the EU Structural and Investment Fund – similar to that received by Romania and Bulgaria. – Owl

From Western Morning News Saturday:

A Cornwall councillor has called for the Government to explain its decision to not make Cornwall a priority for its levelling up funding.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak released details during his budget statement yesterday of which areas in England and Wales are considered to be a priority for levelling up funds.

However there was surprise in Cornwall when it was revealed that the county is not in the top priority category, but in the second.

That puts it behind 123 other local authority areas in the country, including Mr Sunak’s own constituency area of Richmondshire, North Yorkshire.

The Levelling Up fund is a pot of £4.8billion which has been designed to help provide investment for areas where it will make the biggest difference, which the Government’s guidance states includes “deprived towns and coastal communities”.

The decision to not make Cornwall a priority area for funding comes despite it being classed as one of the poorest regions in Europe, which made it eligible for European Union funding.

Tim Dwelly, Cornwall Council Cabinet member for economic development, said: “It appears that our fears that Cornwall is not going to get targeted special help from the Government have been realised.

“Before the budget we already knew that we were unlikely to get anywhere near the £100 million a year that Cornwall previously received from structural EU fundings but now we see that Cornwall has been relegated from the priority zone in favour of the red wall areas in the north.

“This is totally unacceptable, anyone with understanding of poverty in the UK has to include Cornwall in the top priority list. We will be urgently asking for an explanation on this.

“How can the Government prioritise areas in most need when the poorest region of the country, Cornwall, is not included? It is simply inexplicable.

“We want to know as a matter of urgency what evidence that the Government has that Cornwall is less in need than the areas that have chosen for priority one which include the Chancellor’s own relatively wealthy constituency.”

Some areas in the South West have been placed in the priority one category, including the Isles of Scilly and Torbay.

Cornwall is in priority two alongside the likes of Plymouth, Mid Devon, West Devon and Bath and North East Somerset.

Cllr Dwelly added: “Sadly for Cornwall the message from Government seems to be that we have been chosen for what feels like levelling down. The key principle for us has been that we wanted Cornwall to be recognised as needing help because of our low pay – that is what it is in human terms, too many people in Cornwall are low paid.”

The Cabinet member said that he was also concerned that with the Shared Prosperity Fund, which was said to be the way that Cornwall would get funding to replace that lost due to the end of EU funding because of Brexit, the Government has indicated that Cornwall will have to bid for funding against other parts of the country.

Cllr Dwelly said: “By indicating that we have to compete with all the other parts of the UK, no matter how well off they are, the government seems to be abandoning the Prime Minister’s pledge to continue to provide the special funding we received from the EU that was based on our low pay and poverty.”

The final decision on whether to allow 1,000 new homes to be built at Sandleford Park could be made by Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick, despite concerns of a conflict of interest as the owner of Bloor Homes – the developer which has submitted the appeal – has donated more than £1.3m to the Conservative Party.

Dan Cooper www.newburytoday.co.uk 

Plans for a major development at Sandleford Park – situated just off Monks Lane in Newbury– have been in the pipeline for more than a decade.

The first planning application was submitted by Bloor Homes in December 2015 but refused by West Berkshire Council in November 2017.

Bloor has since submitted a further four applications, but these have also been rejected by the council and the developer has now decided to appeal.

The appeal was due to be decided by a Planning Inspector, but the Secretary of State has exercised his powers to ensure that the decision is made by his ministerial team instead.

The reason given was that “proposals for residential development of over 150 units would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply”.

However, there are concerns Mr Jenrick’s team could be presented with a conflict of interest as the owner of Bloor Homes, John Bloor, made a £962,000 donation to the Conservatives in the lead up to the 2019 General Election.

He also made a donation of £400,000 before the 2017 General Election through his company, JS Bloor.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said Mr Jenrick may not have the final say and it could be “made by one of his ministerial team on his behalf and in his name instead”. They also insisted Mr Jenrick had not personally asked for the application to be called in.

West Berkshire Council executive member for planning Hilary Cole admitted she was “very surprised” to hear that the application would be decided by Mr Jenrick’s ministerial team.

“I was certainly surprised when I found out, but he is entitled to do so,” she said. “We have to go with it, we don’t get any say on the matter.

“The developer is entitled and within their right to appeal the refusal and we will see what will come of it.”

The founder of Say No to Sandleford – a campaign group which was set up to fight the proposals to build new houses at the site – said the situation may present “an awkward conflict of interest”.

Peter Norman added: “The trouble is any development called in by the Secretary of State will always be mired with suspicions as to the motivation behind it.

“Developers are major contributors to the Tory Party coffers and we have seen the Secretary of State get into trouble with past decisions because of this.”

In April 2020, Mr Jenrick faced calls to resign after official documents revealed he approved a £1bn property development in order to save the Tory donor’s company behind the scheme paying tens of millions of pounds.

Correspondence released by Mr Jenrick’s department revealed the minister was “insistent” the 1,500-home Westferry Printworks project be approved the next day to ensure tycoon Richard Desmond’s company avoided paying between £30m and £50m in council infrastructure levies.

The Newbury Weekly News asked the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) the following questions:

– Can Mr Jenrick reassure local residents he will remain completely impartial and won’t be influenced in any way by the applicant’s links to the Conservative Party?

– Does he see how this could be seen by some to be a potential conflict of interest?

– Will Mr Jenrick be required to declare an interest or declare that the owner of the company that wants to build the homes has donated money to the party he represents?

A spokesman for the MHCLG responded: “Planning decisions are made in line with propriety guidance to ensure transparency and fairness.

“The decision to recover this application was made by officials without ministerial involvement, and one of the planning ministers at the department will decide on the application in due course.”

In a letter to the council from the MCHLG it says: “Although the appeal was to be decided by an inspector, the Secretary of State considers that he should determine it himself.

“This means that instead of writing a decision, the inspector will prepare a report and recommendation which will be forwarded to the Secretary of State.

“This direction is being served on the inspector, the appellant (or their representative) and the local planning authority.”

Flybe’s return to the skies is hanging in the balance amid the resignation of a “big swinging” hedge fund manager that was plotting the airline’s revival.

By Oliver Gill 6 March 2021 www.telegraph.co.uk

Lucien Farrell of Cyrus Capital, whose friends include Ben Elliot, the nephew of the Duchess of Cornwall and co-chairman of the Conservative Party, has stepped down as a director of the company Thyme Opco, according to official filings.

Thyme Opco acquired Flybe from administrators EY in October to “restore essential regional connectivity in the UK, and contribute to the recovery of a vital part of the country’s economy”.

Mr Farrell’s decision to stand down last Monday followed a crunch hearing on the previous Friday, February 26, between regulator Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), EY and law firm Freshfields.

The administrators argued that take-off and landing slots worth tens of millions of pounds each should be handed over to Thyme Opco.

An application by Thyme Opco for an operating licence was also lodged at the hearing.

Industry insiders said that the CAA had adjourned the part of the hearing relating to the transfer of the slots having been unable to come to a final decision.

But the operating licence application is expected to be granted in the next two weeks, the sources added.

Mr Farrell’s decision to acquire the Flybe brand, intellectual property, stock and equipment sparked speculation within aviation industry circles over his motives for restarting the perennially loss-making airline.

“Slots. That is all they are doing. Trying to find a way to reclaim and sell them,” one analyst claimed at the time.

Flybe collapsed a year ago with the loss of 2,000 jobs. Cyrus Capital previously owned the carrier alongside Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic and what was called Stobart Group, the owner of Southend Airport.

The three investors were unable to convince the Government to plug a £100m hole in Flybe’s finances and were unwilling to invest more of their own capital with the spectre of coronavirus looming.

Flybe had up to 12 pairs of take off and landing slots at Heathrow airport. In the past, the sought-after slots have traded for high prices. Air New Zealand sold one slot pair at Heathrow for $27m (£20m) in March 2020, for instance.

The ownership of the slots has been complicated by the pandemic.

When airlines collapse, the administrators would sell them to another airline. If the administrators were unable to sell them, strict rules dictate that they would be handed back to a central slots coordinator.

However, the rules have been suspended during the crisis leaving the ownership of Flybe’s slots in limbo.

Mr Farrell’s resignation leaves Thyme Opco and associated companies with just one director, Jon Peachey, the chief executive of Virgin Group’s American operations between 2008 and 2013.

Mr Farrell, 46, often targets companies facing bankruptcy. One executive once described him as a “big swinging, high-rolling kind of guy. He has got a sort of free wheelin’ style that some investors value.”

A year ago, late on a cold and windy night in March, Flybe pilots around the country peered nervously at their mobile phones, their eyes locked on the plane-tracking app Flightradar24.

Gradually, they watched as the last few Flybe aircraft touched down for the night.

Then they braced themselves for the worst.

Just hours earlier, explosive rumours had started circulating that the airline was on the brink of going bust. Reports of planes being denied access to runways, passengers not boarding aircraft, and pilots unable to fill up with fuel became rife.

Knowing that an announcement by the company’s senior management would only be forthcoming once all planes were on the tarmac, employees waited nervously to discover the company’s fate.

When it came, the news was devastating. The 40-year-old airline, a mainstay of Devon business and a vital cog in the UK’s transport network, would enter administration in a matter of hours.

It saw more than 3,500 people lose their jobs – 1,000 of whom were based in Exeter – and has left a gaping hole in UK air travel that has only been partially filled since.

In an exclusive for DevonLive, two people with front row seats of the airline’s crash – one a senior manager, the other a pilot – discuss what really went wrong for a company that was once the pride of Exeter.

[Don’t forget that Cllr Sarah Randall-Johnson was General Manager for PR and Public Affairs for Flybe at the time Cllr Paul Diviani took over as Leader of EDDC from her in 2011 – Owl]

Flybe’s total passengers over time since 1985 (Image: PA)

Given this history what went wrong? How could they lurch so turbulently between profit and loss?

Click the link below to read these two insider accounts. 

Howard Lloyd www.devonlive.com

Many millions of pounds are being swiped from England’s poorest schools, in a funding switch triggering fresh accusations of bias towards Tory-held areas.

http://www.independent.co.uk

The date for calculating how many children are eligible for extra “pupil premium” cash has been quietly shifted to last October – before schools were able to register many of them.

One of London’s poorest boroughs, Barking and Dagenham, is set to lose more than £1m alone, and the amount lost by schools in similarly deprived areas could run to tens of millions of pounds.

One head teacher – whose school will lose £40,000 – said the sum was the equivalent of an extra teacher, or two support staff, leaving it with “very challenging” decisions to make.

“It is our youngest pupils who will be disadvantaged the most – and all the research shows that the earlier you provide help the better,” Scott Halliwell, of Southwood Primary School in Dagenham, told The Independent.

Anger has been fuelled by the switch being announced too late for schools to encourage parents to register for the pupil premium scheme, which is meant to benefit the poorest children.

Margaret Hodge, the local Labour MP, said she believed the allocations were being manipulated to favour Conservative areas, the latest in a series of similar allegations.

“I am sure the Department for Education (DfE) looked at the way the distribution of this money would fall and saw it benefitted the constituencies of Tory MPs,” Ms Hodge said.

“This is all about politics rather than need. This will take more than £1m from my borough’s schools which is not fair – and, if the government is serious about levelling up, it’s not fair.”

Mr Halliwell protested that the decision came too late to act. The youngest pupils receive free school meals anyway – leaving parents with no incentive to register for pupil premium cash, unless encouraged to do so.

“We were only informed in December, about a change that was being introduced two months earlier,” he said, explaining that 30 of 171 eligible pupils had been missed, of which 20 are in the youngest year groups.

Asked why the DfE had made the change, the head teacher added: “I could not possibly comment. I don’t know whether they realise the impact this will have on us.”

The Education Policy Institute also raised the alarm, saying there were “questions to raise about the timing of this change”.

“The economic situation caused by the pandemic means schools are likely to have seen more pupils become eligible for the pupil premium towards the end of last year,” said Jon Andrews, its head of analysis.

“This means that we could now see a rise in the number of pupils classed as ‘disadvantaged’, but without the funding to support these extra pupils arriving for a whole year.”

The pupil premium, introduced by the Cameron-Clegg government, hands over £1,345 for every primary age pupil who claims a free school meal, or £955 for a secondary student.

Allocations have always been based on numbers registered by each January – but was suddenly switched to “the number of eligible pupils recorded by schools in their census in October 2020”.

That was just a few weeks after the new school year started. There has long been criticism of the failure to introduce automatic registration, requiring parents to be badgered.

A Barking and Dagenham Council survey found that 40 of its 60 schools had collectively lost £862,000 – suggesting the overall loss will top £1m.

That would “more than offset” the money they would receive from a promised £700m “catch-up” fund to compensate for learning lost because of the pandemic.

But the DfE insisted using data from October allowed schools to “know their budget earlier in the year, helping them to plan ahead”.

“We also recently announced £302m for a Recovery Premium, building on the pupil premium, which will be targeted towards the most deprived schools to support disadvantaged students’ attainment,” a spokesperson said.

According to the Daily Mail:

Boris Johnson fears the final bill for Carrie Symonds‘s lavish makeover of their Downing Street flat could be as high as £200,000.

Extract from Simon Walters www.dailymail.co.uk 

He told aides of his worries in crisis meetings on how to pay for his fiancee’s refurbishment. 

A source said the Cabinet Office had asked Conservative chiefs if party HQ has paid for some of the work – but failed to get an answer.

The Prime Minister faced further trouble last night over claims that Whitehall ethics chiefs have refused to approve his secret bid to help raise funds for the makeover by setting up a ‘Downing Street charity’.

According to Tatler, the main living area of the flat has been painted deep green and is often lit by candles.

Tory ministers are facing a backlash following their decision to recommend only a 1% pay rise for NHS workers despite the unprecedented pressure staff suffered during the coronavirus pandemic.

[Worth remembering that pensioners will continue to get a minimum 2.5% rise as the Chancellor did not scrap the “triple lock” of granting pensioners 2.5%, consumer prices index, or average wage rise whichever is the greatest. – Owl]

Graeme Demianyk www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

The growing anger and the threat of industrial action risks eclipsing Rishi Sunak’s manicured budget and the successful vaccine roll-out, with calls for the public to support a slow hand clap next week against the pay proposals.

A 1% rise represents a drop in the bucket in the context of the government-backed Covid relief package worth £407bn.

NHS accounts for 2019/20 show that £45.1bn was spent on salaries and wages, meaning a rise of 1% would amount to approximately £450m. Under another estimate, the Department of Health and Social Care referenced a figure of £56.1bn covering permanent and “bank” staff spending in 2019/20 in evidence to the NHS pay review board. That would mean a 1% uptick costing around £561m.

Critics have pointed to how the government has lavished significant sums of money elsewhere, often on projects with questionable merits. Here are a list of just a handful or so that have caused anger in the last 18 months.

£2.6m: Refurbishment for White House-style press briefings

Downing Street has spent more than £2.6 million on renovations in order to hold White House-style press briefings, it was revealed on Saturday.

According to the PA news agency after a response to a Freedom of Information request, a total £2,607,767.67, largely excluding VAT, was spent to allow daily broadcasting by various news organisations within the Grade I listed building.

An extensive overhaul within No 9 Downing Street began last year as the government announced the plans to hold the televised question and answer sessions with journalists, with their launch long delayed during the coronavirus pandemic.

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “It would take around 100 years for a newly qualified nurse to get paid this kind of money.

“It sums up Boris Johnson’s warped priorities that he can find millions for vanity projects, while picking the pockets of NHS workers.”

Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper added: “This is nothing more than an expensive vanity project and is just more evidence that this government’s priority is spin, not substance.

“The prime minister himself said that he ‘owed his life’ to Covid doctors and nurses but now he’s happy to see front-line nurses take a real-terms pay cut, whilst he gets a flashy new TV studio – the prime minister should hang his head in shame.”

£37bn: Spending on troubled Test and Trace system 

HuffPost UK revealed on Thursday that the small print of Sunak’s budget showed the Test and Trace system is to get another £15bn, bringing its total cost to £37bn. The funding for 2021/22 comes on top of this year’s spending allocation of £22bn.

MPs said that the “eye-watering” sums should prompt ministers to do more to prove that the system, run by Tory peer Dido Harding, was giving taxpayers real value for money. 

Test and Trace has been dogged by criticism since its launch last April, with critics seizing on its use of private consultants at £1,000-a-day, its outsourcing to firms like Serco and its failure to deliver contact tracing rates or rapid test turnaround times seen as vital to stop the spread of Covid.

The National Audit Office published an interim report on Test and Trace last November which concluded that the government “needs to learn lessons” and that the service “is able to make a bigger contribution to suppressing the infection than it has to date”.

£340,000: Payout to Home Office official after Priti Patel bullying claims 

On Thursday, it emerged the government agreed a “substantial” payout to settle a top civil servant’s employment tribunal claim after he quit amid allegations of home secretary Priti Patel’s bullying.

Home Office chief Sir Philip Rutnam is reported to have accepted a six-figure sum after launching legal action against the Cabinet minister.

The department’s former permanent secretary dramatically resigned in February last year, accusing Patel of a “vicious and orchestrated” briefing campaign against him, claiming constructive dismissal and accusing Patel of bullying her subordinates.

A 10-day employment tribunal to hear Sir Philip’s case was due to take place in September.

Neither the Home Office nor the the FDA Union would disclose the amount of the settlement but it is understood to be a “substantial” sum.

But the BBC, the Guardian and the Times all reported the figure was £340,000.

£4.4bn: Additional costs of Brexit preparations

Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union cost the taxpayer more than £4 billion in additional government costs, according to the Whitehall spending watchdog last March.

The NAO said that between the EU referendum in June 2016 and March 31 last year, government departments will have spent at least £4.4 billion, while £6.3 billion was allocated by the Treasury for Brexit preparations.

They included planning for both “deal” and “no deal” scenarios, with £2 billion specifically earmarked for “no deal” preparations in 2019-20 – although this was scaled back after the prospects of “no deal” receded.

Of the money spent, £1.9 billion went on staffing costs, £1.5 billion on building new systems and infrastructure, and £288 million on bringing in expertise and external advice.

At the peak of activity, in October 2019, there were 22,000 staff working on Brexit preparations, including 1,500 who had been moved within government to prepare for a possible “no deal” exit. 

£150m: Millions of unusable face masks

During the early days of the pandemic, the government scrambled to secure deals with suppliers for precious personal protective equipment (PPE). Questions have been raised about many of the contracts, among the most notorious being a deal for 50 million face masks that did not work.

The masks were bought for NHS England from investment firm Ayanda Capital as part of a £252 million contract. But the government said because they used ear-loop fastenings rather than head loops, they may not have fit tightly enough for clinical use. It confirmed in court papers that the masks would not be used in the NHS.

Based on incomplete Whitehall figures, the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor estimate the 50m masks would have cost more than £150m of public money. 

£60m: Falling short of supplying computers to disadvantaged schools

A £60m contract was awarded for the education department to provide laptops to teachers and disadvantaged children during the lockdown.

But in August, HuffPost UK revealed the scale of the failure to deliver the computers to the poorest communities. Figures obtained by the Children’s Commissioner for England showed 27 academy trusts were left with just one device each.

In April, education secretary Gavin Williamson pledged the government would fund devices for children on free school meals in Year 10, as well as for vulnerable pupils with social workers and care leavers. But, despite some 540,000 pupils being eligible for the scheme, just 220,000 laptops were delivered to schools by August as a second lockdown loomed.

£1m: Boris Johnson’s ‘Brexit plane’ gets a red, white and blue makeover 

A plane used to transport the prime minister and the royal family was given a red, white and blue makeover that cost almost £1m.

The once-grey RAF Voyager was resprayed in white, with a Union flag on the tailfin and United Kingdom written in gold on the fuselage.

Boris Johnson had complained about the military paint scheme used on the jet.

As well as being a serving military plane, Voyager is used to transport the prime minister and members of the royal family to engagements abroad.

The cost of the respray, undertaken at an airport in Cambridgeshire, was condemned by opposition politicians when it was revealed.

The SNP lambasted it as an “utterly unacceptable use of public funds”.

Downing Street, which confirmed the work would cost “around £900,000”, said the new colour scheme meant the plane could better represent the UK around the world with “national branding”.

The number of number of coronavirus cases confirmed across Devon and Cornwall has dropped nearly 40 per cent this week, down to the lowest levels since September.

Daniel Clark, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

A total of 380 new cases were confirmed across the two counties in the last week, down from 650 the week before, and bringing the total since the start of the pandemic to 45,964.

Cornwall has the second lowest infection rates of any upper tier authority in England, with Devon third, behind the Isle of Wight.

Of new cases confirmed since 26 February, 78 were in Cornwall, 67 in East Devon, 29 in Exeter, 23 in Mid Devon, 14 in North Devon, 86 in Plymouth, six in South Hams, 24 in Teignbridge, 41 in Torbay, six in Torridge and six in West Devon.

In terms of infection rates per age range, case rates are highest in the over 80s in Devon.

Exeter has its highest infection rates in the 40-59 age range, while every other local district authority has its highest figures in the 20-39s. In Devon, no age group has an infection rate of more than 50/100,000.

The number of patients in Devon’s hospitals following a positive covid-19 test has fallen to levels not seen since the middle of October, and at 43 patients has more than halved in a week. The NHS Nightingale Hospital is empty.

There were 12 patients at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (down from 22 as of Feb 23), zero at the Nightingale (down from 17), 10 at Torbay Hospital (down from 16), 18 in Derriford Hospital in Plymouth (down from 32), two at North Devon District Hospital (unchanged), and one in Devon Partnership NHS Trust units (up from zero).

In the last week, there have been eight deaths in Devon and Cornwall hospitals of patients within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test, with three in Cornwall, three in Plymouth, one in Torbay, and one in North Devon.

It comes as Steve Brown, director of public health Devon, said that testing is going to be the cornerstone of transition back to normal life. He said: “Over coming weeks and months, we are going to see a lot more movement of people – students returning to education, more people getting back to work, the loosening of restrictions on how many people we can be in contact with, and in time shops, cafes, and other businesses reopening.

“Coronavirus thrives on socialisation, which is why we see case numbers fall during lockdown, when movement and socialising is restricted.

“Taking a test regularly – the rapid tests that give results within the hour – is going to be an absolutely vital part of our way out of the coronavirus pandemic.

“Local community testing sites are available to anyone who work or whose volunteering requires them to be in contact with other people. We are also encouraging parents of secondary school and college-age students to use the community testing centres, as well as people in support bubbles. The tests are very quick and easy to take and results are texted or emailed back to you within the hour.”

Latest figures on vaccines show that more than half of all adults in East Devon, Torbay and West Devon have now had their first jab.

By 28 February, 461,165 vaccines had delivered in Devon, 445,074 of them first doses. Just under 50,000 vaccinations were carried out last week.

Simon Jupp spouts the party line, extolling the virtue of the budget, but can’t find much to say about East Devon – why not? Owl

Simon Jupp Conservative, East Devon  1:54 pm, 4th March 2021

Much has been said in the press about a perception that this Budget would be focused on the north. It may make a predetermined headline work, but it does not reflect the package of measures that will help every corner of our country, including my home county of Devon.

I joined a conference call with local hoteliers in East Devon last night, hosted by the excellent Sidmouth Town Council. The extension of the furlough scheme will help keep staff on the books as the hospitality industry reopens its doors in May with restrictions still in place. Much praise was heaped on the new restart grants, providing up to £18,000 to hospitality businesses. That will give hotels, pubs and restaurants across East Devon a welcome boost before the tourism season kicks in.

When they fling open their doors, the support continues with a suitably Conservative flavour by keeping taxes low to help businesses thrive. The extension of the VAT cut to 5% for hospitality, accommodation and attractions is something I have been calling for over several months, alongside further business rates relief. Both those measures are game changers for an industry hit really hard by the pandemic. I am glad that my calls to extend that support were heard and delivered in this Budget. East Devon’s economy is heavily reliant on hospitality, and the feedback from the industry is positive. I look forward to visiting many businesses across the constituency as they reopen.

While the support for the hospitality industry is nationwide, it will particularly benefit Devon, and the whole county will reap the benefits of several other announcements too. I fought hard to secure support for regional airports after the huge loss of Flybe and the impact of the pandemic. Only one flight landed at Exeter airport in my constituency today, which is not a huge surprise in the circumstances, but the past year has been a bitter blow to the aviation industry. The airport support scheme that I campaigned for will be extended for six months, as work continues on the long-awaited aviation recovery plan. It will take the aviation sector longer than most to recover from the crisis, and taxes, including air passenger duty, need urgent reform to help the industry back on its feet.

On the ground, more than £40 million of funding was included in the Budget to reinstate passenger services on the Exeter to Okehampton railway line. That will encourage more sustainable journeys across Devon and improve connectivity across the county and the city of Exeter, which I am proud to represent.

Another warmly welcomed announcement for Devon was a freeport, which will help to create thousands of jobs across our county. Businesses in Devon will benefit from more generous tax relief, simplified customs procedures and wider Government support, bringing investment, trade and jobs, which will help regenerate our county and our region. Meanwhile, the new future fund presents opportunities for businesses across Devon, including some based at the Exeter science park in my constituency. This £375 million fund will invest in highly innovative companies working in life sciences, quantum computing or clean technology.

The “rabbit out of a hat” Budget bonus was undoubtedly the new super deduction, which will cut companies’ tax bills by 25p for every £1 they invest in new equipment. To put that into perspective, it is worth around £25 billion to UK companies and will kickstart an investment-led recovery—exactly what our country needs.

It is not just our economy that will benefit from this Budget. Devon is home to many veterans, and I am proud to have the Royal Marines commando training centre in Lympstone. Those who risk their lives to protect our nation deserve our support. I was really pleased to see an extra £10 million invested in the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, which will deliver projects to support veterans’ mental health.

There is continued extra support for the lowest paid and most vulnerable on universal credit, and the national living wage will rise again in April. We are also helping people back into work with our plan for jobs. Some 140,000 kickstart job placements have been approved in the first six months of the scheme, with many of those in Devon. Whether it is support for sectors hit hard by the pandemic or investment and new opportunities across my home county, this Budget delivers for Devon and our whole nation in exceptionally difficult circumstances.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies and its Director Paul Johnson make it all very clear.

www.ifs.org.uk

Conclusions

Mr Sunak had three challenges in this Budget – to ensure the right level of support for the economy over the next few months, to set about fixing the longer term public finances, and to deal with the longer term consequences of the pandemic, especially its unequal consequences.

He has done a decent job of the first, arguably erring on the side of generosity.

He has given us a sense of where he wants to go on the second, but he still has a lot of work to do and his spending plans in particular don’t look deliverable, at least not without considerable pain.

On the third he has been silent. No money to deal with post pandemic priorities. No policies to deal with the inequalities that have opened up over the last year between rich and poor, old and young, more and less well educated. This is a big hole in the chancellor’s and the government’s policies, a hole which needs to be filled and soon if we are not to suffer a much worse hangover from this crisis than need be the case.

Extract from Paul Johnson’s opening remarks:

The other assumption is that public service spending plans will be delivered. The big story here remains that the Autumn spending review took some £12 bn a year out of pre pandemic plans in real terms. Yesterday the chancellor chose to trim around £4 billion per year from his cash plans for public service spending after next year. Now these are not firm plans, but they are the basis for the future public finance estimates. They are a very shaky basis.

The Treasury argue that as far as this additional £4 billion cut is concerned this is a purely mechanical change because of a lower inflation forecast. Well up to a point, but it is a particular measure of inflation, depressed by current lockdowns. It does not represent any real reduction in cash needs going forward and it’s pretty clear that, if delivered, this additional £4 billion cut in cash spending will cause additional pain. This isn’t just a mechanical change and presenting it as such means the Chancellor isn’t really levelling with people about the choices the government is making to repair the public finances. 

The actual costs facing departments are unlikely to have fallen. And since the NHS, schools and the Ministry of Defence all have budgets fixed in cash terms until later in the Parliament, this new £4 billion cut will fall entirely on other, unprotected services. Those areas – including perennially squeezed budgets like justice and local government – are now facing real-terms cuts in 2022–23. That’s a recipe for a very tricky Spending Review in the autumn.

But that’s only if you think these plans will actually be stuck to. Are we really going to spend £16 billion less on public services than we were planning pre-pandemic? Is the NHS really going to revert to its pre-Covid spending plans after April 2022?

In reality, there will be pressures from all sorts of directions. The NHS is perhaps the most obvious. Further top-ups seem near-inevitable. Catching up on lost learning in schools, dealing with the backlog in our courts system, supporting public transport providers, and fixing our system for social care funding would all require additional spending. The Chancellor’s medium-term spending plans simply look implausibly low. 

Two related thoughts.

An extract from a Telegraph article basking in the “Budget Glow”, followed by a discussion on what is at stake in changing the fixed-term parliaments act.

Fraser Nelson 4 March 2021 www.telegraph.co.uk

……The madness of 2019 gave us a winter election: voters would not thank Johnson for another one. Spring is the norm. So this leaves two realistic options: go to the polls after three-and-a-half years, or four-and-a-half? 

Just after the general election, the longer time frame looked best. A “levelling-up” agenda was promised, with roads and railways built in the north of England. Such projects need time to bear fruit. When the pandemic struck, it was argued that 2024 would give enough time for the job of social repair to be complete – and for memories of shambolic lockdowns and Professor Neil Ferguson’s misadventures to fade. So for various reasons, time was the Tories’ friend. Or so it seemed then.

But the second wave has changed all that, having doubled the Covid bill to a crippling £350 billion. So we can forget about quickly repairing the lockdown damage and moving on: the costs will now dominate Budgets for the rest of the decade, if not longer. The austerity that Johnson has promised not to repeat now looks unavoidable, with plans to spend £17 billion less on public services than was envisaged this time last year. Hardly the formula on which elections are won.

But the Sunak Budget – which can be summarised as “spend now, pay nothing until 2023” – could have been designed for an election held in the May of that year. It is divided into Biblical-style fat years – the splurge now – and then the lean years, coming in the form of huge tax rises that will continue for the foreseeable.

Until May 2023, the experience of most people will be of economic boom and retail therapy. The economy is expected to surge 7.3 per cent next year, a post-war high, driven by a nation of frustrated shoppers who take two years to spend their lockdown savings. If the recovery goes better than predicted (as Sunak privately expects), the full tax rises starting in April 2023 might not be needed at all.

But delay the election until May 2024 and the post-retail glow fades. As will the growth: it’s projected to be 1.9 per cent that year. And now there’s a new argument: the Tories want the vaccine project to still be in voters’ minds. This is what seems to be driving the opinion polls now: a success that is, increasingly, supplanting the memories of failure……

Boris Johnson may soon have the power to call elections whenever he wants – a legal view on why that’s not a good idea

John McGarry theconversation.com 

Legislation is currently making its way through the UK parliament to repeal the controversial fixed-term parliaments act, which sets the period between general elections at five years and limits the prime minister’s power to trigger an election earlier.

An earlier election is possible if two thirds of MPs vote for it or if the government loses a vote of confidence among MPs.

The 2011 act was passed under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government of 2010-2015. Its immediate aim was maintaining the coalition’s stability but it also had a more principled long-term objective of ending the governing party’s ability to call an election for its own advantage. Then deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said the act would “remove the right of a Prime Minister to seek the Dissolution of Parliament for pure political gain … for the first time … the timing of general elections will not be a plaything of governments”.

Before the fixed-term parliaments act, prime ministers could set the date of the next general election as long as it was within five years of the last. This gave the incumbent government a political advantage. The prime minister could call a general election timed to take advantage of favourable opinion polls, or may even delay an election as long as possible in the hope that unfavourable polls may improve.

By the 2019 election, both main parties were pledging to get rid of the system brought in by the coalition. The Conservative government claimed the act had “led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action”. This referred to Boris Johnson’s failure to secure enough support from MPs to hold an early election on three occasions in 2019.

It’s questionable, though, whether this failure provides adequate grounds for repeal. The act merely fulfilled its purpose in 2019. It prevented Johnson from calling an election simply for political advantage. Any paralysis was as much due to a minority government lacking sufficient support for its Brexit plans as it was the 2011 act.

It should also be noted that an early election was eventually held in 2019, despite the fixed-term parliaments act. Johnson could not convince enough MPs to support an early election but he was able to secure enough votes to pass temporary legislation that would allow him to bypass the fixed-term parliaments act.

So, the story of 2019 is one of the fixed terms system working. It blocked the prime minister’s dissolution power while allowing early elections when there was sufficient support among MPs or parliament as a whole.

A key clause

Now, should the proposed changes go ahead, the prime minister will once again have the power to hold an election at will.

There is also a proposed clause protecting the prime minister’s power from legal challenge. Such clauses – known as ouster clauses – attempt to freeze the courts out of a particular matter. In this instance, the clause would prevent the courts hearing a claim that the power of dissolution has been exercised unlawfully. Courts are, however, adept as side-stepping ouster clauses leading to tension between the courts, parliament and government.

It’s reported that this attempt to oust the courts is a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the government acted unlawfully in 2019 when it tried to prorogue parliament for several weeks. Yet, that attempted prorogation, and the judgment that it was unlawful, is clear evidence of the important role courts play.

It’s widely believed that the real but unacknowledged reason for trying to prorogue parliament for so long in 2019 was to avoid parliamentary scrutiny at a crucial stage in the UK’s exit from the EU. That is, the government’s willingness to ignore constitutional, political and legal restraints for short-term political gain does not demonstrate the problem of courts ruling on the legality of government actions. It instead shows the necessity of the courts as a safeguard against abuse of governmental power.

Of course, the legal challenge in 2019 was not in response to an election being called. But the judgment in that case illustrated the courts’ willingness to intervene to keep the government in check. This explains the ouster clause – it’s an attempt to give the prime minister as much freedom as possible to call an election without interference by the courts.

The ouster clause is also part of a worrying pattern by the present government to insulate itself from political, media and judicial scrutiny. It has recently even launched a review of judicial review, the process by which the courts ensure that governmental power is exercised lawfully.

There should, then, be serious doubts about reinstating the prime minister’s dissolution power. The current government’s willingness to act in ways unprecedented in modern times for short-term gain suggests it is not a good idea. For mature democracies, it’s surely preferable for elections to be at set intervals with early elections permitted if directly elected MPs, rather than the indirectly elected prime minister, decide.

3 days after the High Court ruled Government had acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts, Boris Johnson stood up in the House of Commons and reassured MPs and the public that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record”. However, the final Order handed down by the Judge today shows that what the Prime Minister told the House was not true. 

goodlawproject.org

The Judge confirmed:

“The Defendant has published 608 out of 708 relevant contracts for supplies and services relating to COVID-19 awarded on or before 7 October 2020. In some or all of these cases, the Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to publish the contracts within the period set out in the Crown Commercial Service’s Publication of Central Government Tenders and Contracts: Central Government Transparency Guidance Note (November 2017).”

Remarkably, the Judge’s Order is based on Government’s own figures – so at the same time as Johnson was falsely reassuring MPs, Government lawyers were preparing a statement contradicting him – revealing 100 contracts and dozens of Contract Award Notices were missing from the public record. You can read the final Court Order here and consequential judgment in full here. 

Over the course of our judicial review, Government made no less than four attempts to provide an accurate witness statement setting out the number of contracts and Contract Award Notices that had been published late – and they kept getting it wrong. As late as the hearing itself, they said they had published 28% of Contract Award Notices within the 30 day legal limit. 

But when asked by the Judge to follow up with evidence of the figures so he could make his final Order, it transpired that Government had actually only published 3% of CANs in the legal timeframe. 

Government has not only misled Parliament and placed inaccurate information before the Court, it has misled the country. 

Unless contract details are published they cannot be properly scrutinised – there’s no way of knowing where taxpayers’ money is going and why. Billions have been spent with those linked to the Conservative Party and vast sums wasted on PPE that isn’t fit for purpose. 

We have a Government, and a Prime Minister, contemptuous of transparency and apparently allergic to accountability. The very least that the public deserves now is the truth. 

It is only with your support that we can continue to hold Government to account. If you would like to make a donation, you can do so here.

This is totally shocking.

East Devon, over the past year, has spent an exorbitant sum of Council Tax money on rubbish collection and toilet cleaning, up to three times a day, during the pandemic, with little benefit coming to the tourist industry.

This is an affront to us all.

Sam Sterrett www.radioexe.co.uk 

Photo: East Devon District Council

The facility in Budleigh has been closed

A public toilet at Limekiln, in Budligh, was criminally damaged last week. The photo above shows the full extend of damage, with pieces of the toilet shattered across the floor.

East Devon District Council, who shared the post via Facebook, were forced to close the toilet. The said they currently have no date for repair – but they’ll update the public once they do.

If you have any information regarding the vandalism, please report to Devon and Cornwall police via 101.

More than half of all adults in East Devon, Torbay and West Devon have now had their first Covid-19 vaccine.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

The statistics, which provide the position as of February 28, show that there have been 461,165 vaccines delivered in Devon, with 445,074 of them being the first dose. Just under 50,000 vaccinations were carried out in the last week.

Across the whole of Devon, which will have risen in the most recent days, are by far the highest number of vaccinations for any of the regions within the South West and they show that 44.5 per cent of the adult population had received their first jab. This is up on the 39.1 per cent as of February 21.

In Cornwall, 216,072 people have had their first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, 46.8 per cent of the adult population, up from 39.3 per cent as of last week.

The statistics show that as of Sunday, in Devon, 99.6 per cent of over 80s, 100 per cent of 75-79s, 95.6 per cent of 70-74s, and 79.4 per cent of 65-69s had received one dose, based on the 2019 ONS population estimates.

In Cornwall, 98.4 per cent of over 80s, 100 per cent of 75-79s, 94.7 per cent of 70-74s and 83.9 per cent of 65-69s had their first vaccine.

Of the total population of Devon, 16,091 people, 1.6 per cent of adults, have also had their second dose, with 11,325 in Cornwall, 2.4 per cent of adults.

And figures also show the number of vaccines that have been delivered in each local authority, as well as in the MSOA area.

In every single local authority in Devon and Cornwall, more than a third of all adults have had at least one dose, and in East Devon, Torbay and West Devon, it is more than half.

Of the adult population, 46.8 per cent in Cornwall, 52.6 per cent in East Devon, 35 per cent in Exeter, 46.8 per cent in the Isles of Scilly, 43.8 per cent in Mid Devon, 48.4 per cent in North Devon, 38.9 per cent in Plymouth, 48.6 per cent in South Hams, 48.5 per cent in Teignbridge, 50.2 per cent in Torbay, 48.9 per cent in Torridge, and 53.4 per cent in West Devon, have had one dose. These figures are as of February 28 and so will have risen in recent days.

The government can expect a “backlash” if it goes ahead with a proposed 1% pay rise for NHS staff in England next year, a nursing union has warned.

Is the Government Tone Deaf? – Owl

www.bbc.co.uk 

The health department has made the recommendation in a submission to the independent panel that advises on NHS salaries.

The Royal College of Nursing called the suggested rise “pitiful” and said nurses should be getting 12.5% more.

NHS staff have been excluded from a pay freeze for most public sector workers.

The NHS Pay Review Body is due to recommend salary levels for health service staff before early May, before ministers then make a final decision.

In its submission, the health department said awarding NHS staff a “headline” pay increase of more than 1% “would require re-prioritisation”.

Health department officials said the Covid pandemic had placed a “huge strain” on NHS finances, whilst the economic outlook “remains uncertain”.

They added that this increase was still above the CPI rate of inflation, whilst some staff would see a higher rise under a previously agreed three-year deal.

Some 1.3 million public sector workers will see a pay freeze next year, while those earning less than £24,000 guaranteed a pay rise of at least £250.

image captionThe PM and his fiancee Carrie Symonds outside 10 Downing Street joining in clap for carers in May

Speaking on BBC’s Question Time, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said he was sure the pay round “has been discussed and established at the right level”.

“No one is doubting that the NHS hasn’t been absolutely first class in this pandemic. What I am suggesting is that the whole economy has been under pressure,” he added.

But Labour said a 1% increase for NHS staff was “the ultimate kick in teeth to our NHS heroes who have done so much to keep us safe over the past year”.

The party’s shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said staff “deserve a fair pay rise,” adding the proposal was “an absolute insult”.

NHS pay in England has been out of the news since 2018 when a three year deal was agreed and welcomed by unions.

But the issue is firmly back on the agenda with a new deal needed for the upcoming financial year.

This is just the start of the process.

The government has made its submission to the NHS Pay Review Body. But the fact that ministers think a 1% pay rise is reasonable has angered health unions.

They see it as scant reward for the huge efforts of staff during the pandemic.

Government sources say that inflation is so low that 1% still represents a real terms increase and that public finances are constrained.

This is shaping up to be a tense few months with pay added to the many difficult issues facing the NHS.

RCN Chief Executive Dame Donna Kinnair said the government was “dangerously out of touch with nursing staff, NHS workers and the public”.

“Nursing staff would feel they are being punished and made to pay for the cost of the pandemic. It is a political decision to underfund and undervalue nursing staff.

“With the time remaining before the Pay Review Body recommendation, the government can expect a backlash from a million NHS workers. Taxpayers are supportive of a significant and fair pay rise for NHS workers – this year of all years.”

One nurse, Carmel O’Boyle, said she was “disgusted”.

“We just want something that reflects the work that we do. We want a fair wage and I don’t think the government understands at all what the nursing workforce does,” she said.

“I understand it is a very difficult year for the whole world… but this is a political decision,” she added.

The British Medical Association (BMA) said the recommendation was “a kick in the teeth”.

Its chair of council, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, accused the government of a “total dereliction” of its “moral duty and obligation to a workforce that is keeping the NHS on its feet and patients alive”.

He said: “Throughout the pandemic, doctors have cared for more critically ill patients than was ever thought possible and worked round the clock despite suffering from extreme stress and exhaustion.

“The government should demonstrate that it recognises the contribution of a workforce that has literally kept this country alive for the past 10 months.”

A government spokesperson said they would “consider carefully” the recommendations made by the NHS Pay Review Body when it reports in the spring.

The government “will continue to provide pay rises for NHS workers”, despite the wider freeze on pay in the rest of the public sector, the spokesperson said.

They added multi-year pay deals had delivered a pay rise of over 12% for newly qualified nurses, and will increase junior doctors’ pay scales by 8.2%.

The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act is essential to holding the government accountable. But it’s being undermined by a major loophole: it doesn’t apply to government contractors.

go.cfoi.org.uk

Will you help get FOI extended to government contractors?

The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act is essential to holding the government accountable. But it’s being undermined by a major loophole: it doesn’t apply to government contractors.

Since the Act was passed, outsourcing has vastly expanded. Government now spends £292bn a year buying goods and services – more than a third of all public expenditure. Private companies like Serco, G4S and Capita receive millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but because they’re not subject to FOI we can’t properly hold them to account.

During the pandemic £10.5bn of government contracts were awarded without competitive tender and hundreds of millions was spent on “potentially unsuitable” PPE according to the National Audit Office, the spending watchdog. It also found that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to receive government contracts.

Access to contractor-held information depends on the public authority and contractor agreeing to clauses in the contract which permit it – a totally unacceptable situation that allows vital information to be withheld from the public.

We think the FOI Act should be extended to cover all contractor-held information via an FOI request to the public authority. Major contractors should be required to answer requests directly.

Support for bringing contractors under FOI has come from:

• The Information Commissioner, who enforces the FOI Act. 
• The House of Commons Public Administration & Constitutional Affairs Committee 
• The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee 
• The Committee on Standards in Public Life 
• The government appointed Independent Commission on Freedom of Information 
• The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition, which brings together 18 of the UK’s leading anti-corruption organisations 
• The Open Government Network of civil society organisations

But we need to show there is huge public support for it too. This is where you can help:

• Sign this petition to Boris Johnson It only takes a few seconds.
• Spread the word further and sharing this link to the petition on Facebook and Twitter https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/extend-the-freedom-of-information-act-to-companies-awarded-government-contracts

Thank you!

Katherine Gundersen

Campaign for Freedom of Information

A fund intended to boost the UK’s most deprived places appears overwhelmingly skewed towards Tory-held areas, with dozens of Conservative regions in the top tier for assistance despite being relatively affluent, a Guardian analysis has found.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com

Among 93 English regions placed in the priority group of three tiers to receive money from the £4.8bn levelling up fund, 31 are included while not being ranked as in the top third most deprived places by average deprivation score.

Of these 31, 26 are entirely represented by Conservative MPs, with the others having at least one Tory MP.

Among the remaining five is Canterbury, is a highly marginal Labour-Conservative seat.

Labour described the way the fund was allocated as “divide and rule”, and called on ministers to publish the criteria for the tiers. One MP whose area was excluded from the top tier called the decision “a stitch-up”.

Four places are in the uppermost level for funding despite being ranked in the bottom third of English regions by deprivation score, the analysis found. All those areas have Conservative MPs.

One area is Richmondshire in North Yorkshire, where the local MP is Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, whose own department is leading work on the fund. This is among the top fifth of most prosperous places in England by the average deprivation score.

The analysis will add weight to complaints about “pork barrel politics” within Sunak’s budget on Wednesday. It included money for two other funds, both of which appear also to lean towards Conservative-held areas.

The chancellor announced £1bn in extra money for an existing towns fund, intended to help struggling areas. Of the 45 new grants unveiled this week, 39 will go to towns with a Conservative MP.

Finally, a community renewal fund, with a total spend of £220m, will also benefit Sunak’s Richmondshire region. In all, seven areas represented by cabinet ministers are among the 100 areas targeted for help.

Dan Jarvis, mayor of the Sheffield city region and the Labour MP for Barnsley Central, said the government’s treatment of the levelling up fund was “symbolic of their divide and rule approach”, noting that while Richmondshire was in the top level, Sheffield and Barnsley – both of which have notably higher deprivation levels – were in tier 2.

Jarvis called for the funding metric to be published: “It’s yet again proof that this government’s actions are levelling South Yorkshire down, pushing our region and some of the poorest places in the north to the back of the queue for investment.”

Paul Dennett, the Labour mayor of Salford, said he could not understand why his city was tier 2 for the fund: “Salford is the 18th most deprived area in the country according to government’s own index of multiple deprivation. We would have fully expected Salford to have been included in category 1.”

While the levelling up fund also covers Scotland and Wales, deprivation statistics between the nations are not directly comparable, meaning the Guardian analysis only covers England.

However, Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, Liz Saville Roberts, said she could not understand why Gwynedd, in north-west Wales, which includes her Dwyfor Meirionnydd constituency, was put in the lowest tier for help, saying that earlier EU funds prioritised it as among the least developed areas in Europe.

She said: “Our public money is being snatched for the budget of Tory bungs. This is not levelling up but a stitch-up.”

Boris Johnson was asked on Thursday about the allocation of the towns fund towards Conservative seats, arguing that his party’s win in the 2019 election meant “there are a lot of Conservative-represented towns”.

Speaking to reporters on a visit to Teesport in north-east England, he said: “I’ve asked about this and I’m told that the criteria was entirely objective – it takes in data on poverty, employment and so on.”

The row has been exacerbated by apparent confusion in government over how the decision to allocate spending had been made.

While Sunak had told a post-budget press conference that the metric was “based on an index of economic need, which is transparently published”, an apparent reference to the levelling-up fund, the fund’s official prospectus, says this information is coming “shortly”. Treasury sources were unable to say how long this might be.

A Treasury spokesman said: “The bandings do not represent eligibility criteria – and money will be allocated to the areas most in need. Further technical details will be published by the government in due course.”

The metrics for the towns fund also appear somewhat open to interpretation. While a wider pool of 541 eligible towns was selected based on official deprivation levels, further selection was down to factors including what was called “strategic alignment with government priorities”, investment opportunities, and other indicators of need.

Similarly, the formula for deciding who received money from the community renewal fund was also somewhat qualitative, based on an assessment by the housing ministry of seven “strategic fit considerations”.

(Unless your’e “three homes” Robert Jenrick MP for Newark)

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government www.gov.uk

This list consists of 45 of the 101 Towns Fund areas who have had their funding confirmed at part of Budget, announced by the Chancellor on Wednesday 3 March 2021. Funding equates to £1.02 billion in total.

[A National Audit Office report released in July revealed 61 of the 101 towns in the original list were chosen by ministers led by Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick – and all but one of these were either Tory-held seats or targets, including his own of Newark. Meg Hillier, chair of the powerful Commons Public Accounts Committee, accused the Government of “cherry-picking” which areas received funds. So the “cherry-picking” has become even more selective. – Owl]

Boris Johnson 2019: “And so I am announcing now on the steps of Downing Street that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared. To give every older person the dignity and security they deserve…”

Just another of “those” Tory promises – Owl

www.spectator.co.uk

If Daniel Defoe had been writing about modern budgets, he would have adapted his famous saying to include the certainty of death, taxes and an absence of a long-term plan for adult social care. Once again, the statement from the Chancellor had a yawning gap where the settlement for funding the beleaguered sector should be. There was no mention of social care in Rishi Sunak’s speech or in the Budget Red Book, either. The government’s answer to complaints about this is that ministers will publish a white paper on social care reform — but we’ve been hearing this line for years now.

Indeed, we might be hearing this line for longer than we’re being led to believe currently. The Whitehall machine at least seems to be gearing up for yet another delay to social care reforms. Ministers have been saying they will announce them later this year, but two official government documents have recently said we should instead expect them next year. 

There’s this official government response to a House of Lords Public Services Committee report, which reads: ‘In the longer term, the government is committed to sustainable improvement of the adult social care system and will bring forward proposals next year.’ Then there’s this letter from Treasury minister Steve Barclay to the Future Social Care Coalition, which says exactly the same thing.

When I spoke to No. 10 about this, sources pointed me to Boris Johnson’s words to the Liaison Committee in January that reform would be announced ‘later this year’. There’s always a chance, of course, that this sentence is being cut and pasted around Whitehall by civil servants who haven’t noticed that it was originally written in 2020 with a view to reforms being published in 2021 and we are in fact now in ‘next year’. But then again, they could turn out to be a Freudian slip.

If Daniel Defoe had been writing about modern budgets, he would have adapted his famous saying to include the certainty of death, taxes and an absence of a long-term plan for adult social care. Once again, the statement from the Chancellor had a yawning gap where the settlement for funding the beleaguered sector should be. There was no mention of social care in Rishi Sunak’s speech or in the Budget Red Book, either. The government’s answer to complaints about this is that ministers will publish a white paper on social care reform — but we’ve been hearing this line for years now.

Indeed, we might be hearing this line for longer than we’re being led to believe currently. The Whitehall machine at least seems to be gearing up for yet another delay to social care reforms. Ministers have been saying they will announce them later this year, but two official government documents have recently said we should instead expect them next year.