“Arcuri’s decision to cooperate with the GLA monitoring officer reopens the prospect of Johnson facing an investigation for a potential criminal offence of misconduct in public office.”

Mark Townsend www.theguardian.com

A fresh inquiry has opened into Boris Johnson’s relationship with Jennifer Arcuri after the US businesswoman dramatically agreed to assist officials, paving the way for the prime minister to face possible criminal investigation.

Arcuri has formally offered to help the Greater London Authority (GLA) ethics watchdog by allowing it to inspect extracts of her diary entries chronicling her affair with Johnson and agreeing to be questioned for the first time by investigators over the relationship.

The contemporaneous diary excerpts, disclosed in the Observer last week by the journalist John Ware, reveal how Johnson allegedly overruled the advice of staff to promote the business interests of Arcuri and win her affections.

Arcuri’s decision to cooperate with the GLA monitoring officer reopens the prospect of Johnson facing an investigation for a potential criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

In a previous investigation into Johnson’s business relationship with the then 27-year-old Arcuri, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) did not have access to Arcuri’s handwritten diary entries in which she made “verbatim” notes of the highlights of his telephone calls and their conversations.

The police watchdog eventually concluded it would not be launching a criminal inquiry into whether Johnson abused his position as London mayor to “benefit and reward” Arcuri. Investigators also never interviewed Arcuri or received testimony from the tech entrepreneur.

Her evidence is potentially even more critical because the original IOPC inquiry was also hampered by the deletion of key email and phone records at City Hall that prevented the watchdog from “reviewing relevant evidence”.

The latest developments into allegations that Johnson offered to help Arcuri launch her tech business while simultaneously pursuing her for sex will pile more pressure on the prime minister, raising fresh questions over his integrity and lax approach to probity in public life after weeks of sleaze allegations have engulfed his party.

After the Observer last week revealed some of the explosive entries in Arcuri’s diaries, Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, wrote to the GLA’s monitoring officer, Emma Strain, asking that she urgently refer the new evidence to the IOPC to “look again” at its decision to rule out a criminal investigation.

Strain, in turn, contacted the Observer for assistance in obtaining Arcuri’s diaries so she could assess whether the issue was a “serious complaint” that appeared to constitute or involve a criminal offence being committed.

If Strain judges that the issue is serious, she will formally refer the matter back to the IOPC to decide if it will investigate Johnson over the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

After several days of weighing up whether she wanted to assist the GLA, Arcuri finally agreed and at 7pm on Friday sent an email to Strain, head of its ethics watchdog.

“I am prepared to show you or your investigators copies of the relevant pages,” Arcuri wrote. “However, I currently reside in the United States, so it would mean you or they [the IOPC] travelling here for that purpose. In that event, I would also be prepared to be interviewed, if that assists.”

If that is not possible, Arcuri has authorised veteran journalist Ware, with whom she has “entrusted” her diaries, to show investigators relevant pages detailing her business dealings with Johnson.

Arcuri handed the first tranche of her diaries to Ware after the 2019 general election and following his ITV documentary in which he accused the prime minister of having a “tenuous relationship to the truth” after Johnson’s repeated insistence that “absolutely everything was done with full propriety” regarding his relationship with Arcuri. Ware was sent a second tranche of material from Arcuri in May 2020.Ware approached Arcuri after recent comments by Johnson about public probity and she consented to allow publication of some of her diary extracts. One Arcuri diary entry reveals how Johnson offered to be her “throttle” in an attempt to accelerate her business career, claims that may reopen the possibility of Johnson facing a potential criminal investigation into misconduct allegations.

It recalled how Johnson told her: “How can I be the thrust – the throttle – your mere footstep as you make your career? Tell me: how I can help you?”

The diary entries also suggest that Johnson broke the rules governing ethical conduct in public office in his dealings with Arcuri.

Responding to the Arcuri revelations last week, a government spokesperson said: “As mayor, Boris Johnson followed all the legal requirements in the Greater London Assembly’s [sic] code of conduct at the time.”

Interesting to re-read this report from 2017 and what Jeremy Hunt (Health Secretary 2012 to 2018) had to say. 

www.independent.co.uk 

Chart highlights NHS hospital bed shortage crisis in comparison to other European countries

The UK has 273 free hospital beds per 100,000 people, the 24th lowest of 27 European countries

The UK has just 273 hospital beds available per 100,000 inhabitants

Jeremy Hunt has rejected claims the NHS is facing a “humanitarian crisis” and argued that the UK spends more than average for a rich country on the health service – despite having one of the worst hospital bed shortages in Europe.

The UK has 273 free hospital beds per 100,000 people, the 24th lowest of 27 European countries, according to Eurostat.

More than a dozen hospitals have reported that 100 per cent of their beds are in use, with one hospital in Essex remaining without a single free bed in any general or intensive care ward for 27 days in December.

Two patients died on trolleys in A and E and 42 emergency departments were forced to divert ambulances to other hospitals last week, twice the frequency of the same period last year.

The Health Secretary told Radio 4’s Today programme pressures in the NHS was less about overall funding than about consistency of provision.

Jeremy Hunt says only ‘one or two hospitals’ are in trouble despite claims of a humanitarian crisis

He argued that the NHS now had more doctors, nurses and funding than ever, but explained what he called “very serious problems at some hospitals” by suggesting pressures were increasing in part because people are going to A and Es when they should not.

Germany has three times as many free beds as the UK, with 823 available beds per 100,000 people, while France has 621 free beds for the same population.

Only Denmark, Ireland and Sweden have fewer available hospital beds than the UK, which lags behind the EU average of 521 free beds per 100,000 people.

More than 70 per cent of hospital beds are occupied by emergency admissions, according to the King’s Fund, while 80 per cent of patients who stay in hospital for over two weeks are over 65.

Theresa May said an ageing population “brings pressures, particularly in the interface between the health service and social care”.

“Funding is now at record levels for the NHS, more money has been going in,” said the Prime Minister, sparking claims she was “in denial” over how the health service is struggling in real terms.

Peter Brookes Times cartoon: November 20, 2021

The man who first proposed a cap on adult social care costs has said he “particularly regrets” the latest “big changes” the government has made to its plans for social care reform, which he warned will “find savings exclusively from the less well off”.

Jessica Hill www.lgcplus.com

The amendments, which were published yesterday by the Department for Health and Social Care with no fanfare while the government was embroiled in the fiasco over MPs’ second jobs, means that those with fewer assets will be less likely to benefit from the cap.

When the £86,000 cap on the amount anyone would pay for social care was first announced in September, it was expected to include all care costs including means-tested council funding. But now, in a blow to those receiving government help towards their care costs via the means test, only private contributions will be counted.

The announcement is part of what is being viewed as a very complex and wide-ranging set of changes. The Local Government Association is expecting to work with the government in the near future to understand the implications of the overall package.

Commenting on the plans, Sally Warren, director of policy at The King’s Fund, tweeted yesterday: “With the new government model, the state still contributes if assets are less than £100,000 but the cap is set not on total care costs but on how much the individual spends. They would still need to spend £86,000. This is barely better than current system: maximum exposure is £86,000 versus £92,000 under the current system

“It is clear that those with under £106,000 do little better than under current system and a lot worse than under the Care Act [Dilnot proposals]. It’s only when you have more than £186,000 that the government system leaves you no worse off than the Care Act.”

Sir Andrew Dilnot, who first proposed a cap through the Dilnot Commission in 2011, told the Treasury Committee this morning he was “very disappointed” by the changes – which contrast with his own recommendations in 2015 that those who already have social care need should not be expected to make any contribution – effectively what he called a “zero” cap.

“Essentially what this change does is – for those who have long care journeys, significant care needs – [it] means the less well off will not gain any benefit from the cap,” he said.

“The only change as a result of all of these reforms will be that instead of running your assets down to your last £14,250, you’d run your assets down to your last £20,000.

“The people most harshly affected by this change will be those with assets of exactly £106,000 – that is, the £86,000 of cap plus £20,000 that is protected by the means tested system.”

Around 60% of old people who end up in adult social care have assets less than £186,000, and Mr Dilnot claimed all of this group “will do less well under what the government is proposing than under the proposals we made”.

“[The changes] find savings exclusively from the less well off group,” he said. “I regret the main parameters [of the reforms] and I particularly regret the announcement made yesterday which removes a central element of probativity which we did think was an important part of this structure.”

Mr Dilnot also highlighted a “north-south axis”, warning that areas with lower house prices such as Hull are likely to be hit hardest by the changes.

Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, shared this view. In a statement, she said: “It becomes clear that the cap will disproportionately benefit those living in the south rather than the north, where house prices are that much lower, flying in the face of the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda.

Mr Dilnot said it was “unlikely to be a significant sum of money” that the Treasury will save through the latest changes, “which is partly what makes me regret the decision”.

But he conceded that the proposals “still take us to a better place than we are at the moment”.

“The cap is less generous than I wanted it to be and the outcome is a bit lower. But nonetheless it moves us from the world we are now, which is an entirely means tested regime which exposes the whole population to catastrophic costs, to for the first time a national risk pool for social care.”

At the committee session, Ms Warren echoed this sentiment, indicating that despite her reservations over the latest changes, the proposals are still “the right overall structure”.

But she cautioned that while the Dilnot Commission incorporated “a whole host of other recommendations”, the government’s own proposals do not. The Dilnot proposals included “the need for a public information campaign so individuals understood what their liabilities were to help them prepare”, she said, and “working with the financial services industry to make sure that different products would emerge to be able to support that individual”.

“We’ve not seen much information from the government on any of those wider set of things which are required to make the system work,” Ms Warren said. “Because if this is going to help people prepare, they need to know about it – it’s not something that they should just find out about as they get the care in.”

She also warned that the social care reforms are “building on an existing means tested system that has been underfunded for over a decade, and remains underfunded”.

“Andrew’s first report in 2011 talked about the importance of the first thing you do being to strengthen the foundations in the current system, then you make these changes to the structure. We’ve not seen that happening at the same time.”

She highlighted Age UK’s claim that as many as 1.5 million people have an unmet care need, and how the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services says £10bn a year is needed to stabilise the adult social care system, in addition to what the government has provided through the levy.

“The spending review has provided 1.8% a year spending power increase,” Ms Warren said. “Normally social care demographic pressures are around 1.82% a year. We’ve also then got additional cost pressures through the increase in national minimum wage, the increase in national insurance contributions and changes on things like energy costs, which we think means adult social care will need considerably more than the 1.8% its being provided.”

Ms Abrahams said the changes announced yesterday make “the overall scheme a lot less helpful to older people with modest assets than anyone had expected”.

“It waters down Sir Andrew Dilnot’s original proposal to save the government some money, but at the cost of protecting the finances of older home owners who are not terribly affluent if they need care for a long time.

“This feels like completely the wrong policy choice and we are extremely disappointed that the government has made it – and that it is only announcing it now, rather than two months ago when the prime minister set out his plan. Unfortunately, its impact is such that it is more than a mere ‘tweak’.”

Charles Tallack, assistant director of the REAL Centre at the Health Foundation, said: “While we support the government’s ambitions to reform social care and protect people from catastrophic care costs, these last-minute changes seem poorly conceived and are a step in the wrong direction.”

From Unlock Democracy:

After an immense backlash, the Government has scrapped its plans to replace the independent watchdog that scrutinises and polices the behaviour of MPs.

But the Government’s attack on the elections watchdog continues.

The Elections Bill will end the independence of the Electoral Commission by letting the Government set the priorities for the Commission.

The Prime Minister admitted that he had ‘crashed the car’ with his handling of the Owen Paterson debacle.

With his attack on the Electoral Commission he’s driving it over the cliff.

We have written to the Prime Minister to point out the similarities and ask him to rethink the Elections Bill.

Will you add your name in support of our letter?

To maintain public confidence in our politics, we need effective and independent watchdogs that can keep the Government in check.

That’s why the Government’s plans to weaken the Electoral Commission, and more recently the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, are dangerous.

We cannot let them dismantle the bodies that exist to protect our democracy.

Lord Evans, the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has warned against the Government giving itself new powers over the Electoral Commission.

He said – “It is like giving a toddler a gun – it may not immediately lead to disaster, but it’s an extremely dangerous thing to do.”

That’s why we have written to the Prime Minister to ask him to ensure that the independence of the Electoral Commission is maintained.

If you agree, please add your name in support of our letter today.

Best wishes,

Tom Brake

Director, Unlock Democracy

The health secretary, Sajid Javid, is facing questions over share options he continues to hold in the hi-tech US company he worked for until rejoining the cabinet in June – and which operates in the healthcare sector.

Who voted for weak tweaks to parliamentary standards? – Owl

Heather Stewart www.theguardian.com 

Javid was paid the equivalent of £150,000 a year by C3.ai, a California firm specialising in artificial intelligence (AI), from October last year until he was given the job of health secretary.

As part of his remuneration package, he was also given “an option for 666.7 shares per month”.

According to the health secretary’s current entry in the register of MPs’ interests, he continues to hold these options, which he reports have a market value of approximately £45,000.

The deputy Labour leader, Angela Rayner, has written to the prime minister’s ethics adviser, Lord Geidt, to ask him whether this represents a conflict of interest.

“In September, the secretary of state’s department announced that the use of AI would shorten waiting lists in our NHS,” she wrote, suggesting the idea the Department of Health could spend taxpayers’ money on AI “could clearly be perceived as beneficial to an AI company”.

The ministerial code states that “ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or perceived conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private financial interest”.

Employee share options usually allow the recipient to buy a set number of shares at a predetermined price, sometimes on a particular future date.

Their value fluctuates with the company’s share price, so they are used to give staff an interest in the company’s value appreciating. Details of when Javid’s options can be cashed in have not been published.

C3.ai is a California-based tech firm which floated on the New York Stock Exchange in December 2020. Among nine industry sectors listed on its website, it includes “healthcare” and “government”.

It has a UK subsidiary, and is now recruiting sales and marketing staff in the UK. Javid advised the firm on “the global economy, geo-politics and market opportunities”.

The NHS was already increasing spending on AI before Javid arrived in post, but he recently highlighted its potential role in tackling health injustices.

“Technology, particularly AI, can be an incredible force for good. It can save valuable clinician time and help provide faster, more accurate diagnosis, so patients can access the care they need as quickly as possible,” he said. “It can also help us better understand racial differences so we can train our workforce to look for different symptoms or complicating factors, diagnose faster, and tailor treatments.”

Javid held the post at C3.ai alongside another advisory role, with US bank JP Morgan from August 2020 to June 2021, for which he was also paid the equivalent of £150,000 a year. He took up that role six months after resigning as chancellor. Javid previously worked for JP Morgan before entering parliament. Both of these jobs were cleared with the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs for former ministers.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said: “The secretary of state has acted in line with the ministerial code and has properly declared these share options in the usual way.”

Aides suggested he had begun the process of divesting himself of the options when he became health secretary, but that the process was difficult because the market for share options is not very liquid.

Javid unexpectedly became health secretary in June, when Matt Hancock resigned after being caught on camera in a clinch with Gina Coladangelo, a longtime friend who had been brought on to the DHSC’s payroll.

From a correspondent:

Once again the South West has missed out, in spite of Grant Shapps on Spotlight, a couple of days ago, telling us to “wait and see”.

The North and Midlands are shouting and screaming, despite receiving money from the transport swag bag. It is not enough. They need more to get their economy going.

Why is it that politicians in the South West are not “shouting and screaming” that our economy needs to get going and better transport might possibly help?  Yes, we have had the Restoring Your Railway Fund, launched in January 2020 of £300 million. This is peanuts – just think of the billions being sunk on HS2 and London’s Cross rail. 

Or perhaps they think that the London Waterloo to Exeter SINGLE TRACK is not a deterrent to economic growth. Are they happy with rail movement west of Exeter along the peninsula?

So what was Grant Shapps surprise present? Well, a letter from Boris endorsing the “Great South West has the raw materials to supply the rest of the UK with low carbon green power”.

What are these raw materials? Land for Solar Farms? Land for Wind Farms? I, amongst many others, had thought the “Great South West” was one of the prime agricultural areas of the Country. 

Or does this refer to exploitation of the “Golden Opportunity” we are supposed to be enjoying from Hinkley C which seems to have had little or no economic impact on Devon and Cornwall? 

It looks suspiciously like that this will be a very inexpensive option for the government, a bit of Magic Sauce and Catchup Ketchup.

Until we all stop voting for anything wearing a blue rosette it seems that the South West will always be the last in the line for government handouts. Just look at the 2019/20 funding per pupil in Devon. It was £4,395 compared to the national average of £4,689, a difference of £294. This gap has widened from £268 per pupil below the national average in 2018/19.

The situation has been described as ‘unprecedented’

Philippa Davies www.sidmouthherald.co.uk 

An urgent review is to explore the crisis in the South Western Ambulance Service and the issues that are causing it. 

A Devon County Council task group will look into the reasons for the extremely high demand on the service and the delays at hospitals that are hitting ambulance response times.

The review was secured by the county councillor for the Otter Valley, Jess Bailey, at a meeting of the health and adult care scrutiny committee on Thursday, November 11. 

The emergency service has been under extraordinary pressure for 18 months and since June this year has been on ‘black alert’ – the highest level. 

An executive director of the ambulance trust, Jess Cunningham, who attended the meeting remotely, described the situation as ‘unprecedented’. 

The committee heard of the serious problems around handover delays at acute hospitals, particularly at Derriford and Torbay, which has worsened significantly in the last twelve months. They were told: ‘there is definite patient harm being created’ and the environment for ambulance staff is ‘incredibly difficult’. 

Cllr Bailey proposed what is known as a ‘spotlight review’ – an in-depth consideration of a service by a small group of councillors who take evidence from relevant people and organisations. The proposal was seconded by Cllr Martin Wrigley and the committee resolved to undertake a review, looking at the delays in transfers, response times, impact on patients and personnel and the role of the NHS 111 service. 

Cllr Bailey said: “An urgent Spotlight Review is very important in order to understand the specific challenges faced by our ambulance service here in Devon.  

“The report from SWAST confirmed what I have long suspected. Paramedics are having to wait hours to admit patients to hospital. Ambulance services provide a link between the NHS – primary, community and secondary care. Pressure on ambulance services reflects the crises across the whole system and shines a light on the situation facing the NHS.” 

She said the latest data, published last week, shows that average response times to the most serious cases has continued to increase in the South West in October. The past six months has seen an increase in average response time from 8 minutes and 3 seconds to 11 minutes and 48 seconds.   

Cllr Bailey said “A Spotlight Review will enable a close examination of the issues that were touched on in the Scrutiny Meeting which are contributing to pressure on SWAST, including handover delays, and issues around community urgent care, and the 111 service.” 

Correspondence from Chris Wakefield:

Aggregate Industries’ quarrying plans for Straitgate Farm (Ottery St Mary) will shortly stagger to a final reckoning at DCC on December 1st. As planning applications go, this one features such a wealth of shortcomings and unanswered questions that Councillors due to pronounce on it are spoilt for choice in how to condemn it. The most glaring contradiction lies between Devon’s declared climate emergency and AI’s incomprehensible plan to haul up to 1.5 million tonnes of Straitgate gravel (20% of which is useless waste anyway) 23 miles to Hillhead for processing – a plan about as sensitive to the climate emergency as the felling of rain forest. By any rational planning process this alone would render the application dead in the water, but institutional inertia in Devon County’s climate emergency response, its habitual resort to greenwash, and the inadequacy of a planning system built for a pre-climate crisis era could be enough, despite its obvious inadequacies, to violate the fundamental moral imperative to reject it.

I think I’m too old to contemplate sticking my face to the road in protest (doesn’t appeal much anyway), but this is in my manor, and I am disturbed that my local authority might not rise to the occasion, even to protect our shared living environment.

The writer Ben Okri says he must ‘write as if these are our last days’. I agree that a sense of extreme emergency is immensely important, because these could be our last days – unless we are all prepared to take appropriate action. If our elected representatives don’t feel that urgency – and the moral responsibilities that come with it – they’re in the wrong job.

The plan has been described as something from the 19th Century by local councillors.

The owners of South West Water, the Pennon Group, are the authors of a report aimed at levelling up the South West, recently praised by Boris Johnson. So is this a glimpse of the future, overdevelopment and inadequate infrastructure? – Owl

www.bbc.co.uk 

South West Water has apologised to the customers affected

A village flooded by sewage 11 times this year may be offered portable toilets as a short-term solution.

Some residents of Clyst St Mary, Devon, have been unable to use toilets for up to 60 hours at a time due to sewage overflows.

The plan has been described as something from the 19th Century by local councillors.

Matt Crabtree, engineering director at South West Water, said the company will “deliver the right permanent solution”.

Earlier this month, South West Water wrote to Bishops Clyst Parish Council to request a list of properties left without flushable toilets because of problems with the sewers and offered to provide portable “camping-like” toilets as a short-term solution.

Conservative Councillor Mike Howe, of East Devon District Council, said the suggestion was “hard to believe in a modern society”.

He added: “If it was the 1800s you’d sort of understand it. I struggle to understand it in this day and age.”

Mr Howe also wants all development in the West End of East Devon, to be halted until South West Water sorts out the sewage problems.

The firm has previously struggled to keep up with demand on its services, with 42,000 raw sewage discharges in 2020 alone, according to the Local Democratic Reporting Service.

Mr Howe and East Devon Conservative MP Simon Jupp recently met with South Water executives, who promised to provide monthly updates on sewage problems in the area.

“Extensive” repairs

In a letter to Bishops Clyst Parish Council, Mr Crabtree apologised to customers who had been impacted by the drainage issues.

He added: “We are continuing to investigate the cause of the issue and have been making a number of improvements to the sewer network and to the Clyst Honition pumping station, as well as adding and moving monitors to help trace the root causes.

“We are committed to delivering a permanent solution which will involve detailed works and upgrades to our network.

“These repairs will be extensive and will cause disruption to the area and because of this, we want to be absolutely sure that we have traced the cause to deliver the right permanent solution for the community.”

Letter to Guardian spells it out.

You report that “A&E staff have struggled to find beds for patients because the hospital has run out of space as a result of Covid-19, because of an inability to discharge patients who are medically fit to leave, or due to the record demand for care” (NHS patients dying in back of ambulances stuck outside A&E, report says, 14 November). Aren’t you missing the elephant in the room? The reason A&E staff are struggling to find beds is that the beds aren’t there any more. When the Conservatives came to power in 2010 there were 169,681 hospital beds in the UK. By 2020 the Tories had slashed that to 131,795. Hospitals aren’t coping because the Tories are destroying the NHS.

Denis Beaumont

Wombourne, Staffordshire

More promises heading to the bonfire. – Owl

www.independent.co.uk 

‘Red’ rating means programme faces ‘major issues’ which ‘do not appear to be manageable or resolvable’

The pledge of 40 new hospitals was a key part of the 2019 Conservative election campaign.

Boris Johnson’s pledge to build 40 new hospitals by 2030 has hit fresh trouble after being judged “unachievable” by a watchdog.

The project – already dogged by criticism that most schemes are refurbishments, rather than new buildings – has been given a “red” rating by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA).

It means there are “major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.

Sources told the Health Service Journal that the IPA carried out two reviews of the programme in the last six months, the latest review – completed this autumn – resulting in the “red” rating.

The IPA’s 2020-21 annual report gave it an “amber/red” ranking, which meant the successful delivery of the project was “in doubt”, but the forecast had now worsened.

The department of health and social care acknowledged the “red” rating and has been asked to respond to fears that the pledge – a key part of the 2019 Conservative election campaign – appears doomed.

Labour pointed to the revelation emerging one day after Mr Johnson “sneaked out social care changes” that will force poorer pensioners to pay higher care bills.

“We learn the government’s own Infrastructure and Projects Authority is warning the Tory promise to deliver 40 new hospitals is now ‘unachievable’,” said Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary.

“From failing to stamp out corruption, betraying the north over rail and now more broken promises over health and care, the Tories simply can’t be trusted to deliver any of their promises.”

The promise of 40 hospitals came under fire almost immediately, when the bill was put at as high as £24bn – while the Tories refused to specify the cost or where the money would come from.

It then emerged that, of the 40 projects, the majority were not in fact new hospitals but were rebuilding projects on existing sites, or the addition of extra units.

Last summer, it was revealed that health bosses had been ordered to ensure that any such building scheme “must always be referred to as a new hospital”.

The instruction was contained within instructions sent to NHS trusts called the New Hospital Programme Communications Playbook, also leaked to HSJ.

Sajid Javid, the health secretary, was embarrassed when he said he was looking forward to opening a “new” hospital – when the cancer care centre had been planned before Mr Johnson’s 2019 pledge.

The HSJ also reported that the Cabinet Office has drafted in a former transport infrastructure chief in Australia to speed up the programme.

Developers are “gorging” on greenfield sites in rural areas to build despite a record amount of brownfield land being available for construction, a charity has said.

www.independent.co.uk 

A report by the CPRE, an organisation that aims to protect the countryside, said there is enough brownfield land in England to accommodate 1.3 million homes.

Despite this, CPRE said “wasteful and immoral” developers are choosing to concrete over greensites because it is cheaper. Emma Bridgewater, the charity’s president, is calling for councils and planners to take a “brownfield first policy”.

“We need to direct councils and developers to use these sites – often in town and city centres where housing need is most acute – before any greenfield land can be released,” she said.

“It is wasteful and immoral to abandon our former industrial heartlands where factories and outdated housing have fallen into disrepair. Developing brownfield is a win-win solution that holds back the tide of new buildings on pristine countryside and aids urban regeneration at a stroke.”

In The State of Brownfield, CPRE’s latest study, the charity says there are enough derelict sites in London alone to build 350,000 houses.

Meanwhile in the north west there is enough brownfield land available for developers to build around 170,000 units.

The report highlighted two cases in Manchester which it said were examples of how development in inner cities is slow . It said the former Boddingtons Brewery site in the city has been awaiting development for 15 years.

Despite the increasing availability of brownfield land, planning permission permits for building on green sites are soaring, CPRE said

The proportion of brownfield housing units with planning permission is the lowest since records began – down to 44 per cent  in 2021 from 53 per cent in 2020 – and the actual number, at 506,000, is the lowest for four years.

Ms Bridgewater said she welcomed the recent “warm words” from the government to protect green sites but wants to see more action on a brownfield first policy.

Andy Street, the Conservative mayor for the West Midlands, said the priority for housing “has to be providing homes that are much needed” while protecting the “greenbelt for future generations.”

“That’s exactly what we’re doing here in the West Midlands,” he added. “The simple fact is there is no excuse to destroy the countryside while so much brownfield land is available for housing, which is why in our region we use the cash we’ve won from government to pay to clean up derelict industrial land.

“This is vital in the context of protecting our natural environment so it can help in the fight against climate change while levelling up our towns and cities so that they are thriving, attractive places to live and work – with nature on the doorstep to be explored and enjoyed.”

Prime minister Boris Johnson has previously pledged to encourage more housing in the north and Midlands to alleviate stress in the overheating market in London in the southeast.

Earlier this year, Mr Johnson was forced into a U-turn by his own MPs following a backlash controversial planning reforms unveiled in the Queen’s speech, which critics said would turn swathes of the south into an urban sprawl.

Downing Street later in the Budget announced a £1.8 billion fund to regenerate brownfield land for 160,000 homes, with Michael Gove, the new “levelling up” secretary responsible for housing has emphasised the need to build on brown sites.

A Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spokesperson said: “We welcome the CPRE’s commitment to focus on brownfield, which is an absolute priority for the government.”

So no promises of money for rail or road improvements in the South West. The carrot he is reported as dangling is to “support” “greening” the South West. The greening report, however, was  written by none other than one of the main polluters of our rivers and seas, the Pennon Group. See:

South West Water says now is the time to create a “green jobs” G7 legacy

“Pennon, the South West’s biggest employer and parent company of South West Water, has written a report on behalf of the Great South West calling for the region not to be overlooked in the Government’s plans to level up the country. The report demands a “green jobs boom” to stop the brain drain of talented young people leaving the region.”

Are we all about to pay for a “clean-up”? Why is a monopoly utility group leading on economic regeneration? – Owl

Boris hints at ‘powerhouse’ decision as South West kept waiting

Hannah Finch www.cornwalllive.com 

Boris Johnson has told the South West it must continue to wait for news about the region’s £45billion ambition to become the UK’s ‘natural powerhouse’.

The Prime Minister, in an exclusive letter to our sister print title the Western Morning News, which has been spearheading the #BackTheGreatSouthWest campaign, hinted at good news on the horizon.

The PM writes that the Levelling Up White Paper, due to be published by the end of this year, will provide ‘an important step towards securing the formal recognition and funding that the Great South West Campaign seeks’.

But he has made no firm commitments and a campaign leader today declared: “The region has already been waiting too long”.

Mr Johnson’s comments come in response to a letter to Number 10 sent by Bill Martin, the newspaper’s Marketplace Publisher, and Editor Philip Bowern in September. They urged him to act on his warm words about the Great South West campaign.

At the time, business leaders said they were ‘beyond frustrated’ at the lack of action on their business case which they say will transform the region, delivering £45 billion of economic benefit and establishing the region as the UK’s leader for the green and blue economy.

In his letter, sent in September, Mr Martin explained how it has been five years since the #BackTheGreatSouthWest campaign was launched with the region’s biggest private sector employer Pennon Plc and the backing of MPs, business leaders and LEPS.

The Great South West Partnership set out how it has the potential to become the ‘UK’s Natural Powerhouse’ in its Securing the Future prospectus and presented it at 10 Downing Street in 2019.

The deal asked the Government for £2million over three years to progress its ambitions but nothing has yet come of it.

In his letter, Mr Johnson said that he is a supporter of the greater South West and recognised the work that had gone into the campaign.

He said: “The Government is a passionate supporter of a greater South West and I recognise the work that partners have put into the prospectus, maintaining the partnership and securing the support of MPs, local government and others.”

Mr Johnson added that the Levelling Up White Paper “is an important step towards securing the formal recognition and funding that the Great South West Campaign seeks, whilst providing the right framework for delivering these ambitions”.

But Mr Johnson’s response still falls short on the reassurances that the region is expecting, said Mr Martin.

“The Prime Minister appears to recognise that the Great South West is an opportunity, and his reply seems to indicate this will soon be recognised by Government. The trouble is that the region has already been waiting too long and that is preventing the region from realising its full potential,” he said.

“However we shall await the white paper and will continue to lobby on behalf of the region.”

Business leaders have expressed concern that the rural South West, including Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset that is represented by the Great South West, will be overlooked in favour of its nearest cousin – the Western Gateway – covering Bristol, Bath, Gloucester and parts of Wales, including Cardiff.

They fear that the Government will want to deal with one entity only when considering the needs of the South West.

But it is not as simple as that, said John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council.

He said: “The economic challenges faced by the Great South West are a world away from Bristol, Bath and Swindon, and demand special recognition by Government in terms of productivity, wages and life chances.

“Our communities have been the poor relations for far too long, but the potential for the Great South West to be England’s green powerhouse is huge.

“Levelling Up is the Government’s golden opportunity to unleash that potential.”

Gary Streeter, co-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Great South West, said further delay is holding the region back.

He said he had recently explained to the Minister for Levelling Up, Michael Gove, that the Western Gateway area does not wish to expand its territory to include the four counties within the Great South West.

“The Government is beginning to recognise the contribution the Great South West can make to Net Zero and the Plan for Growth but we continue to be concerned that Government is focused on our metropolitan areas and doesn’t recognise the huge levelling up challenges particularly to our coastal and rural places.

He said: “Although we can all understand the need for coherence. There is every hope that we will get the right result, but the delay is holding our region back in maximising its unique potential.”

A report published in September called Levelling Up the South West by thinktank Onward warned against a ‘one size fits all’ policy when considering the differing needs across the South West.

And in the Autumn Budget, big transport cash was reserved for areas with metro mayors, including £540m for the West of England Combined Authority (Weca) region – or £568 per head – for public transport in the Bristol and Bath region.

The South West did secure some vital funding in the Autumn Budget including investment through the British Business Bank for South West SME businesses, a major road improvement project in Plymouth and £48.4m for improved Isles of Scilly ferry transport links.

David Ralph, chief executive of the Heart of the South West LEP, said that it is time for the Great South West to get similar funding and recognition as its urban cousins.

He said: “The Western Gateway have clearly set out they have no appetite to extend the borders and that doing so would not be helpful to either area.

“We are collaborating effectively on areas of common interest on the Bristol Channel and aerospace but the Great South West needs to operate on a level playing field with similar funding and recognition. Then we can work directly with Government to accelerate our ambitions rather than continue to operate on the basis of good will and no funding or support.

“The proposition of the Great South West is genuinely as a powerhouse. Whilst other areas in the UK are looking to use power to try to transition to a low carbon economy, the Great South West has the raw materials to supply the rest of the UK with low carbon green power from its huge resource of untapped natural capital. It’s time to back the Great South West.”

Boris Johnson’s letter in full

“The Government is a passionate supporter of a greater South West and I recognise the work that partners have put into the prospectus, maintaining the partnership and securing the support of MPs, local government and others.

“The upcoming Levelling Up White Paper will set out bold new policy interventions that will improve opportunities and boost livelihoods across the country as we build back better from the Covid-19 pandemic. It will also look at how the Government can best work with local institutions. This is an important step towards securing the formal recognition and funding that the Great South West Campaign seeks, whilst providing the right framework for delivering these ambitions.

“I am pleased that the forthcoming White Paper will present an opportunity for councils and local government to be at the very heart of the Levelling Up agenda. Moreover, with the completion of the review of Local Enterprise Partnerships, we will have a greater understanding of how the Great South West can best work across local institutions.”

There were two similar motions on offer, one was much weaker than the other (non-binding, wishy washy wording only likely to impact 10 MPs, no time table). They voted against the stronger one and for the weaker one. To show cross-party support, they could have supported both or abstained on one

See Chris Bryant chair of the committee for standards in public life:

Plan to rein in MPs’ second jobs is ‘for the birds’, says Labour MP

Labour has asked the Conservatives what checks the party has made on donations received from Russian-linked individuals – and if it could be sure that no cash received came from the Kremlin or others hostile to the UK.

Dan Sabbagh www.theguardian.com

The questions follow revelations about a group of wealthy donors who have given money to the Conservatives and have business links to Russia or other wealthy Russians.

Labour’s Conor McGinn, the shadow security minister, said it was “deeply worrying to see revealed potential financial links between senior donors and Putin’s Russia” and asked about “the adequacy of the processes” by which donors are vetted.

Donors who have made money from Russia or Russians have given £1.93m to either the Conservative party or individual constituency associations since Boris Johnson took power in July 2019, according to calculations made by Labour based on disclosures to the Electoral Commission.

Their ranks include the financier Lubov Chernukhin, the industrialist Alexander Temerko and an energy company he part-owns, Aquind, plus the businessman Mohamed Amersi.

They have donated £700,000, £357,000 and £258,000 respectively, either directly or through linked companies, since Johnson became prime minister, a total of £1.3m. Other donors with business interests in Russia take the total to £1.93m.

Both the Pandora papers, based on leaked documents from offshore financial institutions, published by the Guardian and others last month, and other reporting over the past 12 months have revealed greater Russian links than previously known.

“What checks have been completed on the financial origins of the donations themselves and were any links to hostile state actors discovered?” McGinn asked in a letter addressed to his opposite number, the security minister, Damian Hinds.

The Labour MP also asked whether MI5 had raised any concerns. “Have officials in the Home Office at any point issued internal concerns about the potential implications for the UK’s national security?”

Chernukhin, a Briton since 2011, has donated £700,000 to the Conservative party and is married to Vladimir Chernukhin, a former deputy finance minister under Putin. Documents published in the Pandora papers in October suggest he was allowed to leave Russia in 2004 with assets worth about $500m (£366m) and retain Russian business connections.

The Chernukhins’ lawyers said it was not accepted that any of Lubov Chernukhin’s political donations had been funded by improper means or affected by the influence of anyone else. Vladimir had not accumulated any of his wealth in a corrupt manner, they added.

Amersi advised on a lucrative telecom deal in Russia in 2005 with a company that a Swiss tribunal subsequently found to be controlled by an associate of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Amersi told the Financial Times in July he had made $7m in the country, but only prior to 2008. “Not a penny that I earned in Russia …  has even remotely come close to being invested in the UK political system,” he said.

Temerko is a minority shareholder and co-owner of Aquind, a company that wants to build an electricity interconnector to France. Its majority investor, the Russian-born oil tycoon Viktor Fedotov, secretly co-owned a company once accused of participating in a massive corruption scheme relating to a Russian pipeline.

Lawyers for Fedotov have denied the accusations, while Aquind’s lawyers said the allegations against the Russian company co-owned by Fedotov came from a wholly unreliable report and were completely false.

Aquind has also stressed that Fedotov did not personally donate to the Conservative party, was not involved in the management of the company and had “no influence” over the company’s donations. No accusations were made against Temerko.

In the run-up to the last general election, Downing Street refused to release the Russia report compiled by parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC), taking advantage of a procedural loophole to prevent it being released.

When it was finally published, seven months after Johnson’s landslide win, it concluded that Britain’s intelligence agencies had taken their “eye off the ball” when it came to Russia and had made no serious attempt to examine whether the Kremlin had sought to interfere with the Brexit referendum result.

“Fifteen months after the ISC’s report was published, the government’s continued complacency and inaction on the need to face down hostile state threats is simply staggering,” McGinn wrote.

The Conservative party said: “If a British citizen is able to vote in an election for a political party, they also have the democratic right to donate to a political party.

“All donations are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law. It would be wrong to suggest malign motive on behalf of individuals simply because of the country of their birth.”

Teenagers in the 16 to 19 bracket are driving an increase in covid cases in North Devon and Torridge, according to Devon’s Director of Public Health.

Alex Davis www.devonlive.com

Steve Brown released a statement today to explain the high rates in the North of the county.

Case rates of coronavirus in Northern Devon are among the highest in the country, with levels in Torridge in particular now reaching 713 cases per 100,000 people, compared to the national average, 364 cases per 100,000.

The figures are from the latest available data, released on the government’s Coronavirus dashboard.

While infection rates are almost twice the national average, Mr Brown said that this has not translated into coronavirus-related hospitalisations or deaths.

Mr Brown said: “Case rates across Devon generally are higher than the national average at the moment, and in all age groups, although the 0 to 19 and 20 to 39 age groups are the highest.

“And although we’re seeing positive cases across a range of settings, it is the high case levels particularly in the 16 to 19, secondary school and college-age people, that are driving the increase to some extent.

“There are a few reasons why North Devon and Torridge may be seeing such high rates.

“Both district areas have, until recently, maintained steady and comparatively low case levels, and with that, therefore relatively lower levels of infection-induced immunity within communities.

“Secondly, testing for coronavirus here in Devon is a lot higher that the national average, so it may be that we are seeing higher levels than elsewhere because we’re identifying them.

“We know that the dominant strain across the UK, and in Devon, is the highly transmissible Delta variant, and that too is driving case levels.

“The good news is that the high case levels are not translating into a significant increase in coronavirus-related hospitalisations, nor deaths. People developing the virus may tend to feel unwell, but are not requiring the medical attention that was once required, and they’re getting better.

“The vaccination programme is undoubtedly helping to keep people from becoming seriously unwell, and I urge everyone to take up the vaccine when they’re eligible to do so, including the third doses and booster doses.

“Testing is still important, as too is self-isolating if you test positive with a PCR test. And following the common sense precautions, remembering that this is an airborne virus, of meeting outside where possible, and ensuring good ventilation if gathering with others indoors; wearing face coverings for other people’s protection when in crowded spaces; and washing your hands regularly.”

Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael said: “I wonder if the search by these ministers extends to the shredding room.”

www.independent.co.uk 

No minutes of a key telephone call about a Covid contract awarded to Randox after it employed Owen Paterson as a consultant can be found, a minister says.

MPs were told the failure to “locate” them meant details of the conference call could not be published – just one hour after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to release details of the contracts.

Labour’s Angela Eagle attacked the “astonishing revelation”, saying: “There have been meetings with no minutes that are official and involve government ministers.”

The Commons Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, also laid bare his alarm – at the start of a Commons debate on sleaze, in which Labour is attempting to force the release of all records.

Sir Lindsay said accurate record keeping was even more important during the Covid pandemic, telling the minister, Gillian Keegan: “I’m very, very concerned.”

Mr Paterson’s work for Randox is in the spotlight after documents appeared to show the firm was awarded a £133m testing contract despite government officials knowing it did not have enough equipment.

The army had to be drafted in to secure the equipment for the Northern Ireland company that eventually won almost £600m in Covid testing deals

Attention has been focused on a conference call on 9 April last year between Mr Paterson and the conservative peer Lord Bethell, the minister responsible for testing contracts, a week and a half after the first contract.

The Sunday Times reported that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) was refusing to release minutes of the call.

In the Commons, health minister Ms Keegan was asked to commit to releasing details of the phone call – claiming, at first, that only Randox and Mr Paterson would know what was said.

Under pressure, she then switched tack, admitting to “a courtesy call from the minister to Randox”, but told MPs: “We have been unable to locate a formal note of that meeting.”

Ms Keegan said of “other notes that are available”: “In terms of the minutes, I think we’ve said we will publish things here in the library.”

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, seized on the comments as an admission “that the government is routinely breaking the ministerial code”.

“When a minister meets an organisation or company an official must be present to keep a record of that meeting,” she tweeted.

Ms Keegan said later the government would sit on its hands in the vote on the release of the Randox contract details, which will allow it to pass with Labour votes.

The government, meanwhile, argued it had not lost the minutes of the Randox meeting, but was unable to find them at present.

But the Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael said: “I wonder if the search by these ministers extends to the shredding room.”

Weak regulation has a dreadful impact on our environment

Paul Millar www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Dear readers, sleaze and sewage have not just been the talk of the Westminster bubble but the streets of Exmouth too.

We have sea waters which only weeks ago, along with Budleigh and 13 other Devon beaches, were judged to be too dirty to swim in. 

We have an MP whose response days later was to vote against a legislative amendment to ensure water companies took ‘all reasonable steps’ to reduce raw sewage discharge into our rivers and oceans. Instead, Simon Jupp last week backed a government amendment which gives water companies carte blanche to do diddly squat. 

Water companies have handed a total of £57 billion to their shareholders in the 30 years since privatisation. Across Europe, only the Czech Republic joins England and Wales in having a fully privatised water industry. 

Our weak regulatory framework allows for dreadful environmental outcomes, as the residents in Clyst St Mary have experienced, with a total of 11 instances of sewage flooding this year, and toilets being out of action for 60 hours at a time. England’s only colony of wild beavers at the River Otter is being affected by raw sewage being discharged from an overflow site further up the river. The Devon Wildlife Trust, which lobbied Mr Jupp to vote for the amendment in question, is monitoring the beaver population but is concerned that species of wildlife have suffered much greater harm. Many local people cannot understand Mr Jupp’s position. What was he thinking? 

The cosy relationship between big players in the water industry and the Conservative Party should be a concern to us all. It might well explain the lack of will and action to tackle the companies’ performance. It is a fact that membership of the European Union forced us to improve environmental standards. It is deeply concerning that we seem to be moving backwards, at a time when protecting our environment has never been more important.

Collapsed Exeter-based airline Flybe is returning to the skies, but its comeback will see its new head office relocated to Birmingham Airport.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

In March 2020, the airline – which had its base at Exeter Airport and also operated flights from Cornwall Airport Newquay – went into administration with all flights grounded as a result.

Disruption to the aviation and travel industry brought on by the coronavirus pandemic were partly blamed for the firm’s collapse.

Its brand, intellectual property, stock and equipment was bought last year for a nominal fee from administrators by global private equity firm Cyrus Capital which was a shareholder in the old business.

Last November, Devon County Council bought the former Flybe Training Academy at Exeter Airport for £4m to transform it into the Future Skills Centre which is being leased by Exeter College.

The 2021 version of Flybe has now announced it is to have a head office and operations centre at Diamond House next to the airport in Solihull.

It is one of the first new UK airlines to be certified by the Civil Aviation Authority since Brexit and said it planned to serve key regions across the UK and EU, with services launching in early 2022.

It expects to create 200 new jobs to be based at Birmingham Airport with a further 400 elsewhere in the country over the next three years.

The new carrier recently installed airline turnaround specialist David Pflieger as its new chief executive who brings experience from senior roles with airlines such as Fiji Airways and Delta.

Mr Pflieger said: “We are thrilled to be partnering with Birmingham Airport, the city of Birmingham and the Mayor of West Midlands to make Birmingham Airport the location of our new headquarters and first crew base.

“It was an ideal choice for us due to its great people and highly skilled workforce, its central UK location and the fact that airport is a global travel hub where local and connecting customers have access to over 150 worldwide destinations.

“Today’s announcement marks the culmination of over 12 months of dedicated hard work by all involved and it would not have been possible without the support of the CAA and the UK Government.

“We plan to provide more information in the coming weeks and months about ticket prices, new routes and destinations and other important news. This is an incredibly exciting time for us and we look forward to sharing more updates in the future.”

Prior to its collapse, Flybe was Europe’s largest regional carrier and flew around eight million passengers a year and employed 2,500 staff.

It was owned by Cyrus Capital alongside Virgin Atlantic and Stobart Group.

Birmingham Airport’s chief executive Nick Barton added: “This is fantastic news for our region’s connectivity needs and it will bring with it some great new employment opportunities.

“Dave’s vast experience in managing start-up airlines and turnaround situations, coupled with the recovery of the Midlands’ economy post-covid, means that Flybe’s return to the skies from Birmingham is a shot in the arm for our airport as well as West Midlands businesses and communities.

“We look forward to working with Dave and his team in preparation for next spring and to launch such a well-known brand here in Birmingham.”