www.midweekherald.co.uk

I am tempted to agree with Greta Thunberg that COP-26 was all ‘blah blah blah’.

When Boris Johnson flew back to London from Glasgow instead of taking the train, it was difficult to take his climate promises seriously.

There were certainly important agreements on methane and deforestation, and significant pledges by some leaders. But overall it seemed there was too little, too late, to address the disaster we threaten to hand on to our grandchildren. 

Johnson apparently flew back to plot, with former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore, how to save their mutual friend, the corrupt Conservative MP Owen Paterson, who was notorious for climate-change denial when he was environment secretary.

It was embarrassing to see Neil Parish MP voting for the brazen – and soon to be abandoned – device which Johnson concocted to get Paterson off the hook, while Simon Jupp MP could only abstain. 

It wasn’t as though Parish and Jupp didn’t know that Johnson might be stitching them up. Only ten days earlier, they had both allowed themselves to be used as lobby-fodder in a move to protect the privatised water companies who are dumping sewage in our waterways, including across East Devon, and threatening the safety of our beaches. They have now meekly supported a ‘compromise’ which still fails to commit the companies to a specific timetable for ending this. 

The extent of Conservative corruption is shocking. As Paul Arnott has reminded us, in East Devon we had advance warning – councillor Graham Brown had to resign in 2013 after being caught offering planning permission for cash; it was clear that he couldn’t have done it without accomplices but they were never caught. But now it goes right to the top. Johnson wanted to get rid of the Commissioner for Standards because she has had to investigate him more than any other MP.   

It is not just that this country is now sinking to a level which was previously unimaginable. Corruption also has dire effects on the delivery of services. Billions were squandered on pandemic contracts given to Tory mates through a special fast lane, some of them producing wholly useless PPE.

Dido Harding, a Tory peer, was made head of Test and Trace, one of the most inefficient and wasteful of all the new bodies. Her appointment is the subject of a legal challenge by the Good Law Project, whose director Jolyon Maugham QC argues: “For ministers or special advisers to choose their friends or close associates for these key roles is to exclude those who are more able, or better value. And ultimately it is the public interest that suffers.”

But who is the Government’s anti-corruption champion? Step forward Somerset MP John Penrose, Harding’s husband. 

Only last month we discovered that the Immensa testing laboratory, which was not properly accredited, had issued tens of thousands of fast negatives for PCR tests taken by people in the South West. Many people will have mixed with family, friends and colleagues, thinking they didn’t have Covid, and inadvertently spread the disease, probably causing hospitalisations and deaths.  

This must be one of the reasons that our region, long a low-Covid zone, now has almost the highest Covid rates in the UK. Devon’s NHS chiefs have been reduced to making desperate pleas for families to take their relatives home from hospital as soon as possible, to free up beds. It has been reported that not a single orthopaedic operation was performed in the RD&E during an eight-week period, such are the pressures on our hugely-stretched and underfunded NHS.  

But does the Government care? No need for Plan B, Johnson and Sajid Javid say. It’s probably a bonus from their point of view that more and more people with money will simply pay to jump the horrendous queues, thereby contributing to privatisation and undermining the very idea of a universal health service. 

Extraordinary details of how Boris Johnson allegedly overruled the advice of staff to promote the business interests of his former lover Jennifer Arcuri and win her affections are revealed in previously unpublished diary extracts by the US businesswoman.

Mark Townsend www.theguardian.com

According to one entry, the then London mayor even 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.

The diary entries – which appear to have been written during Arcuri’s affair with Johnson and have been seen by the Observer – also suggest that he broke the rules governing ethical conduct in public office in his dealings with Arcuri.

The handwritten excerpts portray Johnson as desperate to offer help to her in promoting her fledgling business as he pursued a sexual relationship with the then 27-year-old.

One entry recalls 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?”

Arcuri gave her diaries to the veteran journalist John Ware in 2019 after he made an ITV documentary on her relationship with Johnson.

At Ware’s request, Arcuri has now agreed to allow publication of some of the extracts following Johnson’s statements last week about public probity, including how MPs who break conduct rules “should be punished”.

Despite the prime minister’s comments last week, he never mentioned Arcuri in his declaration of interests when he was mayor, and after news of their alleged affair broke in 2019, he said there was no interest to declare.

The revelations will pile yet more pressure on the prime minister after 10 days of relentless allegations of sleaze and impropriety by Conservatives MPs, and growing anger inside the Tory party over Johnson’s own responsibility for, and handling of, the crisis.

The latest Opinium poll for the Observer today shows how the stream of damaging stories has hit Johnson and his party, with Labour now holding a lead over the Tories for the first time since January this year.

The poll puts Labour on 37% (up 1 point), the Conservatives on 36% (down 1), the Liberal Democrats on 9%, the Greens 7%, and the SNP 5%. Johnson’s personal approval ratings have sunk to another all time low of -21%. A fortnight ago the Conservatives held a five-point lead over Labour.

Responding to the latest Arcuri revelations, 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.”

The diaries, however, indicate that Johnson pursued Arcuri, offering to advance her business interests in the apparent hope that this might lead to a sexual relationship with the woman who dubbed him “Alex the Great”.

One diary entry, from 2012, states that Johnson told her: “I can barely control myself whenever I see you. You make me too excited. Baby I couldn’t wait. All year I have been waiting for you. All year. You drove me nuts. I have thought about no woman as I have thought of you.”

Potentially more damaging are excerpts that allege Johnson bragged about ignoring advice from his staff who urged him not to help Arcuri promote her tech company Innotech.

After Johnson had agreed to Arcuri’s request to be the keynote speaker at the launch of Innotech, Arcuri states in a diary entry for 27 February 2013 that Johnson boasted to her how he’d rejected the advice of his staff not to attend. It states: “I just want you to know they came to me and I crushed them. They said: ‘You can’t do this Innotech in April.’ I said: ‘Yes, I can, I’ll be there.’ I only want to do this to make you happy. How I do wish to make you satisfied.”

Another diary entry, this time from November 2012, alleges that Johnson told Arcuri: “You are going to get me in so much trouble.” She also claims that her lover admitted he was aware of a conflict of interest when she asked him to “validate” her tech work publicly.

Members of the Greater London Authority oversight committee which is currently investigating allegations of conflict of interest during Johnson’s time as London mayor called the revelations “significant”.

Committee chair Caroline Pidgeon, speaking in her capacity as an assembly member, said Arcuri’s diary notes were of serious concern. She said: “This new material from Jennifer Arcuri is significant and the IOPC [Independent Office for Police Conduct] may wish to consider whether they need to reopen their investigation.”

Last year the IOPC said it would not be launching a criminal inquiry into whether Johnson abused his position as mayor to “benefit and reward” Arcuri. Arcuri received £126,000 of public money in the form of grants for her technology business and event sponsorship. In addition, she was given access to foreign trade missions led by Johnson. Arcuri insists that none of them were granted personally by Johnson and to date there remains no evidence that they were.

IOPC investigators never had access to Arcuri’s handwritten diary entries in which she made “verbatim” notes of the highlights of his telephone calls and their conversations.

For the IOPC to open a new inquiry into whether Johnson should be investigated for criminal misconduct it must receive a referral from the GLA monitoring officer – an ethics watchdog – to look into the fresh allegations made by Arcuri in her diary. A GLA spokesperson confirmed its monitoring officer would assess “any new significant evidence” into the relationship between Arcuri and Johnson.

Although the police decided no investigation was warranted, the IOPC found his failure to declare the conflict of interest may have breached the GLA 2012 code of conduct.

At the same time as pursuing Arcuri for sex in 2012, Johnson endorsed the code in which he undertook not to bring the GLA “into disrepute” by using his position to “improperly confer on or secure for themselves or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage.”

In December that year, Arcuri returned to the US with Arcuri writing that Johnson was continuing to offer: “How can I be your footstool to your career?” She added how he was “always trying to think of ways to please me.”

Arcuri says Johnson never explained that their relationship posed a head-on conflict with the Nolan principles – ethical standards expected of public office holders and which promote “selflessness, integrity, objectivity, and honesty” in public life. She says that she’d never heard of Nolan until after news broke about their relationship in the autumn of 2019.

As the COP climate summit approached its conclusion in Glasgow without a major declaration for protecting the planet, Exmouth has erred on the safe side and tested its new £12 million defence scheme.

Paul Nero www.radioexe.co.uk

Volunteers will operate the floodgates

The Environment Agency, which led the project, has declared it a “great success.”

This week volunteers tested the procedure for closing flood gates that have been installed along the seafront.

The gates will spend most of their lives open, and only need to be closed when flooding is predicted. More than 1,400 residential and 400 commercial properties now have a reduced risk from rising water. Closing the gates is said to take minutes.

Ben Johnstone Environment Agency area flood and coastal erosion manager thanked the volunteers who operate the gates.

He said: “We train all year round with our partner agencies to make sure we are equipped to respond to incidents, at this time of year with an increase in flood risk it’s vital we make sure we are prepared”.

Councillor Geoff Jung, East Devon District Council portfolio holder for coast, country and environment said: “With all the talk of global warming and rising sea levels, it is great to see this £12 million scheme operational which will protect many vulnerable properties and businesses in Exmouth. We are working on other schemes ourselves and with partners throughout the district to protect properties and businesses which are vulnerable from the sea level rise and increased storm events”  

Some bigger gates along the seafront, such as those that cross roads, require traffic management.  They will result in temporary road closures when flooding is expected. 

Exmouth Journal: Letter from Katherine Wilcox

Five years ago the world watched with a growing sense of disbelief and alarm as President Trump dismantled the institutions and systems of American government which interfered with his agenda to have total control of government.

He used presidential privilege to pardon wrongdoers and ultimately attempted to interfere with the voting system in an attempt to secure a second term in office. When that failed he fomented an insurrection by his supporters who stormed Capitol Hill in January 2021 leading to the death of several people including one security officer who died trying to protect the elected members of the senate.

The Republican senators stood by and refused to act to stop his outrageous attack on the democratic systems of the USA. Even after the insurrection they would not support calls for his impeachment.

We have witnessed Boris Johnson abusing our system of government in a similar fashion. He does not think the rules apply to him; he excuses the inexcusable behaviour of his ministers and friends even after they have been found guilty by parliamentary standards committees of having breached the rules of conduct; he treats the judiciary with contempt if it stands in his way; he prorogued Parliament in October 2019 after the Supreme Court ruled that his first attempt was unlawful. This action had the effect of reducing the time available to debate the Brexit deal. Johnson finally presented the deal to Parliament on Christmas Eve 2019 so that there would be no time for proper debate or scrutiny by Parliament before it was signed off by the January 1st deadline.

Johnson has accused the EU of being obstructive because it is not acceding to all the changes he wants to make to the oven ready Brexit deal which his minister Lord Frost negotiated. The electorate are realising that they have been hoodwinked into voting for a deal which is costing Britain dear.

In two weeks he has outraged Parliament again by using the Chief Whip to get Tory MPs to stop legislation to make water companies clean up their act and now by trying to change the rules of the parliamentary standards watchdog to save Owen Patterson’s skin after he clearly broke the rules on lobbying. Those Tory MPs who have not voted against these outrageous actions need to ignore threats to withhold levelling up funding to their constituencies and resist this corrupt prime minister who is bringing our democracy into such disrepute. American citizens witnessed the near destruction of their democracy by allowing death by a thousand cuts by Trump to the judicial and government standards which are there to protect their democratic system of government. If Johnson is not stopped from treating our parliament and judiciary with the same contempt as Trump, then Britain is at risk of becoming a mafia state run by crooks whose only agenda is their personal enrichment and to hell with everyone else.

KATHERINE WILCOX

Exmouth

Exmouth Journal: Letter from Graham Hurley

This is an open letter to our MP, Simon Jupp. If it reads like a charge sheet, that’s probably because it is.

£37 billion spaffed on Track and Trace? One of the highest Covid death rates in Europe? Local farmers abandoned? Local fishermen sold down the river? Truck drivers a dying breed? Local government on its knees? International treaties torn up? Judicial review under attack? Ditto the BBC, Channel Four, and any other voice raised in protest? And now Downing Street’s blatant attempt to protect one of its own by changing the rules, only to toss him overboard when the going gets rough?

Simon, if you really love East Devon maybe now is the time to jump ship and cross the parliamentary aisle before the Fraud Squad – or the men in white coats – arrive outside the gates of Downing Street. For your sake, and ours, leave this bunch of chancers and incompetents to the fate they so richly deserve.

GRAHAM HURLEY

I don’t think of myself as a “politician”, and neither do my colleagues in senior councillor roles at East Devon District Council.

Paul Arnott www.midweekherald.co.uk

None of us wish to climb the greasy pole, or line up jobs or consultancies as a result of our positions. Indeed, it’s highly unlikely these would be offered. We are not in the Conservative party. 

However, there is one “political” thing that does unite my senior councillors at East Devon, and that is a repeatedly stated and campaigned-on revulsion for corruption in any tier of government. My own pals at EDDC first came together under the umbrella of the Independent East Devon Alliance, in significant part because a Conservative councillor who had been the dominant figure in planning around here was caught in a sting by the Daily Telegraph and made the front page. 

He was recorded on video boasting that he was the man to come to for planning permission but that he didn’t “come cheap”, saying that if he was going to turn a field into a housing estate he’d need tens of thousands of pounds paid through his planning consultancy. 

The police took nearly two years to decide there was no case to answer and the council itself then immediately scrapped the promised enquiry through its own Scrutiny committee to look into the matter. In other words, with the Tories all powerful back then in 2015 when that appalling decision to stifle debate was made, there has been two years of long grass followed by a “nothing to see here/case closed”. 

Amazingly, and to the council’s shame, the argument was made that the whole matter had been “political”, smearing both the independent councillor Claire Wright and my pals at the East Devon Alliance, then just a rather lovely group of local campaigners chaired by an immaculately behaved retired judge. 

And here was the mistake, taken from the national Tory playbook. The result of that shabby little denial of any further debate was that by 2019 Claire Wright polled more than 20,000 votes in a general election and the Conservatives at East Devon were reduced to just 19 out of 60 councillors, losing power for the first time in the district’s history. In other words, voters across the world hate this stuff, and it is a truism now that the cover-up gets punished more than the original act. 

In my five minutes of spare time a week I am getting going on the research for my next book, which will be about the support for and seeds of British fascism in the aristocracy after WW1. Their funding and influence persisted well into my lifetime, and the emergence of the National Front in the 70s.  

But even these fascists would have hesitated before attempting Johnson’s plans; he wanted to close Parliament for his own ends, he wants to scrap judicial reviews, and now he has nearly succeeded in breaking the rules preventing corruption in the Commons.  

“He’s such a laugh” people used to say but he isn’t; he is as much a threat to democracy as Trump in America, and if our local MPs – who lacked the guts to vote against him last week – want to look themselves in the mirror again they should vote him out of his role and take Jacob Rees-Mogg with him. Our country is not safe in their hands. 

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, it is often said, and as we showed in East Devon, there comes a point when the electorate just will not put up with any more of this stuff from the Conservatives locally. In the Commons this week they looked utterly shattered. If there was ever a time for a national opposition to unite to remove their power, as we have done in East Devon, it is now. 

PS It was these events in East Devon that stirred an “old” Owl to take wing “Keeping a close eye on our District” in 2014.

Sir Geoffrey Cox is facing fresh questions over sleaze after claiming almost £1,500 in travel expenses for seven round trips to London in three months last year when he only voted in person on three days.

Carl Eve www.devonlive.com

On the other 18 days of voting in the House of Commons in that period, the Torridge and West Devon MP used an arrangement called a “proxy” to cast a vote without attending.

The Mirror’s investigation found that during the same three months, from October to December 2020, Mr Cox devoted 178 hours to four outside jobs which paid him a total of £143,625.

At the end of this spell, PM Boris Johnson gave Mr Cox a knighthood for his “parliamentary and political service”.

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, said: “At first sight of the evidence available, it appears that Sir Geoffrey has questions to answer. The appropriate authorities should look into this.”

The Mirror’s latest revelations comes after a week of stinging criticism for Westminster’s top-earning MP, who has pocketed almost £6million from legal work on the side since becoming member for Torridge and West Devon in 2005.

His work ethic has not impressed his constituents. Brian Eales, 75, a volunteer at Tavistock Food Bank, said: “I’ve never seen Geoffrey Cox at the food bank in support. At the moment it seems to be all self, feathering his own nest.”

Business owner Suzanne Weston, 53, said: “Geoffrey Cox should stand down. What’s he’s doing is disgusting. Nobody can do two full-time jobs at once.”

Angela Evans, 64, said: “I’m personally appalled by the situation. I would not want him to be returned to office.”

The Mirror examined Mr Cox’s record in the last quarter of 2020 and found no evidence he spoke in Parliament or asked written questions and he was not listed on any parliamentary committees.

He completed the 440-mile round trip by car from his constituency home in Tavistock, Devon, to London seven times in the three months and claimed £105.75 from the taxpayer each way.

Yet he voted in person in the House of Commons on just three days – October 21, November 25 and December 2. For 54 other Commons votes over 18 days of Parliamentary debate he used a proxy.

His register of interests shed light on what else he was doing during that time.

Khan Partnership Solicitors in London paid him £8,000 “for legal services provided between 12 November and 4 December 2020” totalling “12 hrs approx”. The firm paid him £8,875 “for legal services provided in November 2020” totalling “10 hrs approx”.

Khan paid him another “£9,750 for legal services provided in October 2020” totalling 12 hours “approx”.

At the end of September 2020, Mr Cox received the first quarterly payment of £117,000 from Withers LLP for “up to 48 hours a month”. He continues to receive a quarterly payment from the London firm.

Mr Cox did not respond to a request for comment.

Devon County Council is facing a £7 million overspend this financial year according to its latest forecast.

Ollie Heptinstall, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Adult and children’s services are projected to have the biggest overspends with a warning that “significant pressures are being experienced” in both departments and the situation “will need to be monitored closely in the coming months.”

The month-six budget report, presented to the council’s ruling cabinet, said more people with learning disabilities and autism are being cared for than originally expected, while more older people need nursing placements than forecast too.

In addition, more children are being placed with independent foster carers than predicted and shortages in the workforce are leading to higher costs for agency staff.

Councillor Phil Twiss (Conservative, Feniton & Honiton), cabinet member for finance, said the council’s position is “far from unique in England” and largely reflects the impact of covid.  He noted the overspend was slightly lower than the previous month-four prediction of £7.3 million.

Devon has this year received pandemic-related grants totalling more than £36 million, as well as carrying over funding from last year of £26 million.

However, the report warned that “the ever-changing landscape we are faced with continues to present service delivery challenges and financial risks.”

Despite overspends in adult and children’s services totalling more than £12 million, underspends in some other departments have helped reduce the overall predicted deficit to £7 million.

A predicted £36 million overspend on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) this year is outside the forecast because the government has told local authorities to allocate it to a separate ring-fenced account until April 2023.

However, combined with previous years’ totals, the overall SEND overspend is expected to be £85 million by the end of 2021/22, and councillors expressed concern about what will happen to it when the ring-fencing arrangement ends.

County treasurer Angie Sinclair told them: “There is still no indication from government on what will happen at the end of that three-year period” but she added the council could soon join a “hybrid” scheme with the government containing more support.

New homes yet to be built in East Devon are the reason why Cranbrook residents will have to wait until at least spring 2022 until the town’s boundary can be made official.

Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk

East Devon District Council (EDDC) said it will not define the Cranbrook parish boundary for at least six months until an inspector has signed off a plan outlining the town’s upcoming developments.

Cranbrook Town Council has been told by EDDC to reidentify the areas of surrounding countryside to be included as part of the town once a review of future homes has been rubber stamped.

EDDC councillors, at a cabinet meeting held on November 3, voted for a boundary review to be shelved until the Cranbrook Plan has been signed off.

Concerns raised included how development expansion across boundaries could leave neighbouring homes becoming split into different parishes.

An EDDC spokesperson said: “The Cranbrook Plan, which looks to define the future expansion areas for the town, is currently being looked at by a government inspector and a report back is currently awaited.

“Current indications are that this report will be received around the end of the year.

“The cabinet papers mentioned how when communities expand some new homes can end up being built across boundaries, meaning some neighbours are in different parishes from one another.

“When this happens, councils are advised to consider undertaking a community governance review – this is assuming that all the houses have been built – or at least have permission- and that there is a degree of certainty and permanence in terms of development on the ground.

“For this reason, councillors voted for the boundary review to be discontinued and invited Cranbrook Town Council to reapply for it at a later date, after the Cranbrook Plan has been signed off.”

EDDC said a decision on where the Cranbrook parish boundary will have to wait ‘at least six months’ until the plan outlining the town’s next developments has been signed off by an inspector.

“A petition was put forward by Cranbrook Town Council requesting that East Devon District Council cabinet conduct a community governance review, defining what areas of the surrounding countryside will become part of the new town,” EDDC said.

“The matter was discussed at the latest EDDC cabinet meeting on Wednesday, 3 November following consultation with all affected parishes and with consideration of the current status of the Cranbrook Plan.”

A joke about shotguns, made at a meeting of the Devon and Cornwall police and crime panel in Plymouth on Friday, left some observers shocked.

Philip Churm, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Chair of the panel County Cllr Roger Croad (Cons, Ivybridge) was responding to the idea of using voluntary parking attendants outside schools.

It was among many issues raised as the commissioner launched her police and crime plan for the next four years. 

Police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall Alison Hernandez said: “We have a community that has a hunger for being voluntary parking attendants outside a school. Now I know it will be probably tricky [but] I’d love to pilot that.

“You know, this community have had enough. They are really frustrated and we’ve got to work out a way to do it. And we’ve got a community that have come forward saying, we’re willing. So we’ll see how that goes as well.”

Cllr Croad responded with the off-the-cuff remark:

“That would be very interesting one. If you’re calling for voluntary parking attendants, I think you should issue them all with a sawn-off shotgun because it could be awkward, couldn’t it?”

Plymouth Council House, where the meeting was taking place, is less than three miles from the Keyham shooting in August in which Jake Davison shot and killed five people before turning the gun on himself. 

Horrified former assistant chief constable with Devon and Cornwall police Chris Boarland immediately took to Twitter, saying:  “Listen with horror as the panel chair makes a joke about issuing voluntary parking attendants outside a school with sawn-off shotguns. 

“With all that has happened recently and with ongoing concerns about firearms licensing. How can that comment go unchallenged?”

Commissioner Hernandez later addressed his comments suggesting they were misplaced and inappropriate. 

In 2017, Ms Hernandez was criticised herself after a phone-in on BBC Radio Cornwall in which she said told a caller she would “be really interested” in the idea of letting gun owners use their firearms during a terror attack. She said the proposal should be raised with the chief constable to address the implications.

At the time, Devon and Cornwall deputy chief constable Paul Netherton said it was “definitely an emphatic ‘no’” that people should arm themselves against such a threat.

A father has written a long and passionate letter detailing his wife and son’s 13 hours of hell in the emergency department at Torbay Hospital.

Colleen Smith www.devonlive.com

The letter (published in full below) details what happened when Liz Jeffery drove her 24-year-old son Miles to the hospital herself with an emergency bowel condition after being told there would be a six hour wait for an ambulance.

Throughout the ordeal she was in contact with her husband Alan who was working in Plymouth and he heard first hand a blow-by-blow account of the horrors they encountered all around them.

At one point, sobbing and in pain, Liz said her son asked her: “Mum have I died and gone to hell?”

Torbay Hospital says they are seeing more patients, waits are longer in the Emergency Department and it has become harder to discharge patients because of people with Covid in the community and in their staff.

Mother and son witnessed the already overcrowded and cramped waiting room getting more and more full as they waited for help for 12 hours on Wednesday this week – watching as up to 16 ambulances queued outside.

The couple said they have nothing but praise for the five staff (two health care assistants, one nurse and two doctors) who were there – and also for the high quality of care at Torbay Hospital their son Miles has had for multiple complex health conditions throughout his life.

But Mr Jeffery says he is angry at the people who were not there – and is asking “Where are the managers?”

And he added: “Why are there less than half the staff running a busy A&E department than I have running my garage?”

Mr Jeffery, from Littlehempston near Totnes, is a consultant and former owner of Engine Tuner garage in Plymouth for 37 years.

He said it was like a war zone.

“Conditions were only separated from the Lebanon by the absence of broken glass and rubble,” he said.

In the end the couple decided that their son was too ill to stay all night, sitting on a hard plastic chair in A&E and waiting for a doctor on his morning rounds to see them. There were no beds and no trolleys for him to lie on.

“We were told that Miles was next in line for a bed – I got the distinct impression that he would only get one if somebody died,” Mrs Jeffery said.

She had to sign disclaimer forms before being allowed to drive her son home.

“I knew there was no point asking for an ambulance as I could see they were all still queueing outside,” she said.

Mrs Jeffery said there was no privacy for people who arrived. She cried as she recalled the young mum who came in reporting a miscarriage. Another woman collapsed unconscious at their feet. An elderly man with dementia sat bleeding beside them. A woman with a “hideously deformed” broken leg, with sweat on her face from the pain, had to keep asking people not to kick her leg as they walked past.

Police brought in a man in a spit hood. A male security guard was the only person free to take a woman in a wheelchair to the toilet. Another woman drunk or on drugs wet herself as she slept.

“It was like watching an episode of a horror movie – every time someone comes in you would hear an even worse story. There’s no privacy,” Mrs Jeffrery said.

“I’ve never been through anything like it in my whole life. We want to stress that Miles has had nothing but superb treatment his whole life at that hospital.

“And the people working on Wednesday were kind and patient – the young health care assistants looked only about 18 or 19 to me. One looked in danger of collapsing herself because she was the one everyone was firing questions at. The doctor we saw was running down the corridors. He was so kind. He even took blood samples himself because there was such a long wait.”

He husband decided to put pen to paper to tell people about the broken system.

“Liz was telling me everything live via Messenger,” he said. “It was lucky I wasn’t there because I would have gone apoplectic.

“I was listening to her and thinking ‘Where’s the managers?’ It’s ludicrous that they only have five people running that department.

“The system is broken. It was just lucky that my son didn’t have internal bleeding. Miles shouldn’t have been going through A&E – it’s just a convenient catch-all.

“People were scared and in pain and nobody was coming up to ask them if they needed the toilet, a drink – there was no simple humanity.

“I do not believe that “under funding” is the direct cause of this. I believe that muddled thinking, poor management and a completely flawed attitude to primary care is at fault. Along with the care system, it has been completely forgotten that how people feel really matters.

“”The practice of funnelling everybody through the A and E bottleneck should cease. There must be a viable method of dispersal to the correct sort of care that avoids everybody being lumped together in a humiliating lottery for attention. Remember, it should be an Accident and Emergency department, not the war zone it has become.”

What Torbay Hospital had to say

A spokesperson for Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust said: “We are sorry to hear about the experience of Mr Jeffery’s family. While we are unable to comment on individual cases, we would encourage anyone who has concerns about the care and treatment they receive from our services to contact our Patient Advice and Liaison Service so that we can investigate.

“Like most trusts, we have been under significant pressure during recent months with more people needing emergency treatment and an increase in prevalence of COVID-19 in our communities, our hospitals and our staff. This has had an impact across our whole healthcare system with fewer beds available in our hospitals and in care homes and fewer care staff to support people at home. This in turn makes it difficult to discharge people from hospital into the community or back home, and means that sometimes patients being admitted to hospital from our Emergency Department (ED) will experience long waits before we can find a ward bed for them.

“We are seeing five per cent more people attending our Emergency Department than at the same time last year and sadly, many of those attending do face long waits for treatment if their condition is not an immediate life-threatening emergency.

“Every person waiting for care is important to us, and our dedicated staff will always prioritise the sickest patients first. Sadly, in the current environment, this means difficult decisions often have to be made and some people experience a longer wait and a poorer overall experience than we would like.”

“Our Emergency Department team make sure that patients waiting are assessed and care is escalated and prioritised where there are clinical concerns about individual patients.”

Mr Jeffery’s Letter to the Editor in full:

This litany of disasters happened this week in Torbay Hospital but I believe it could have been anywhere in the country.

My wife had to take our son to A and E. A call to 111 was made after he started suffering considerable pain from a bowel condition that was previously under control.

A paramedic was suggested but ruled out due to none being available.

We were told that they would call back in an hour and a half. They didn’t. Another call suggested an ambulance, but they thought it could take up to six hours.

Having discussed the matter, my wife decided to drive our son to A and E herself. With some difficulty, bearing in mind that despite a stoic nature regarding his chronic bowel problem, my son is also on the Autistic Spectrum and has been known to have epileptic episodes when ill.

He was safely delivered into what he subsequently and accurately described as “Hell”.

There were people literally rammed in there, sitting, standing, anything but lying down as there was nothing to lie down on. No trollies, never mind beds, just rows of hard plastic chairs containing a smorgasbord of misery.

Sixteen ambulances were parked outside with patients waiting their turn in the bear pit. A lady sat right alongside my wife had a horribly dislocated ankle and was in terrible pain, begging passers by to be careful as they blundered about.

An elderly man was wearing a mask caked in blood, dripping down the front of his chest.

A couple came in, slowly working their way in, the lady’s face down at one side, clearly displaying the tendencies of a stroke victim.

They were sent away after four hours. There were numerous walking wounded in there, my wife said she would have suspected a bus crash, but they didn’t all come in together.

Babies were crying, people talking loudly on phones, some complaining loudly, some being asked to leave. Several times, she was approached by people asking for help, including one poor lady who requested assistance with the toilet.

My wife couldn’t help her, even though she wanted to, as my son demanded all her attention. No one else offered. One lady told the nurse in clear earshot of everybody listening that she’d had a stillbirth a few months previously and suspected that she had an ectopic pregnancy due to the pain she was in. She was left clutching her stomach and sobbing in a chair for hours.

The police arrived at one point, dragging in someone wearing a spit hood. Security guards were present, stopping people who were helping other people from coming in, unless they could say they were “carers”. Many who were sat on those hard slabs of plastic could have done with some company, shared misery being somehow easier to bear.

Throughout all of this, patients were attended to by just one nurse, two doctors and two ladies dressed in green who were attempting to administer a house of babel from behind glass. I say just one nurse, as every time a shift change took place, the one nurse left to be replaced by another nurse. After four hours, my son was examined by a doctor, who was kind and knowledgeable. Regrettably, he mentioned accessing a blood test, only to be told that my son hadn’t had one.

He did it himself, via a canula insertion. An x ray was recommended, for fear that my son could have a dangerously blocked bowel. Thankfully, the x ray, done several hours later, confirmed the negative.

There then followed several more hours sitting in waiting room purgatory, nowhere for him to lie down, supposedly waiting for a bed, before my wife decided enough was enough. My wife and son had been given no access to food or drink. The shop was closed. The water fountain had no cups.

They were there for thirteen hours in total with no actual medicinal attention, including the hour it took to have the canula removed and more time wasted signing disclaimers because leaving the place was the only viable option. He obviously wasn’t getting a bed, so our son was taken back home to his own. The day after, he was finally seen by a doctor in the gastro department, who is taking his condition forward. His pain has lessened, he needs further treatment.”

A Devon GP has told how she was forced to consider driving a baby with low oxygen levels to hospital herself as she waited on hold for an emergency ambulance.

Edward Oldfield www.devonlive.com 

Dr Ruth Down revealed she was held on the phone to the control centre for 15 minutes then had to call back on 999 as the child’s condition got worse.

The GP was again put on hold for several minutes, and she had to work out if the practice’s oxygen cylinder would last long enough so she could drive the baby to hospital.

Dr Down, a partner at Bideford Medical Centre in North Devon, said it was one of many examples which show “how close basic medical care is to collapsing in the UK”.

The case comes as the latest ambulance performance figures shows the South West had the longest average response time in England for the most urgent calls.

South Western Ambulance Service, which covers the region from Cornwall to Gloucestershire, says it has experienced the highest ever sustained demand.

It has highlighted the worst ever queues to hand over patients at hospitals, and says the system-wide problem has a knock-on effect on its performance.

Figures in the summer showed the waiting lists for NHS treatment were the highest ever following the Covid pandemic, with record numbers attending emergency departments.

Dr Down said in a letter to The Guardian newspaper that the incident with the baby was the first time in her 24-year career that she faced “a very real possibility” of not being able to get an emergency ambulance.

Responding to an earlier letter from a consultant about the pressure on the NHS, the doctor said: “The view from primary care is equally grim, with a chronic shortage of social care beds causing delayed hospital discharges, long waits in A&E, and paramedic crews queueing for hours before they can hand their patients over to hospital staff. The end result is exceptional pressure on the ambulance service.

“I work in general practice and had to call an ambulance last week for a baby with low oxygen levels. I phoned ambulance control, the normal process, and was on hold for 15 minutes, at which point I called 999 instead because the baby was deteriorating, only to be placed on hold again for several more minutes, during which I was calculating whether our practice oxygen cylinder would last long enough to transfer the baby to hospital in my car.

“In my 24-year career I have never faced a situation where there was a very real possibility that we would not be able to access an emergency ambulance. I cannot understand how this situation is not headline news and why the government insists that the NHS is not under undue pressure. Sadly, this incident was only one of many examples I could quote which illustrate how close basic medical care is to collapsing in the UK.”

Richard Webber, of the College of Paramedics and a working paramedic, told the BBC that his colleagues “have never before experienced anything like this at this time of the year”.

He added: “Every day services are holding hundreds of 999 calls with no-one to send. The ambulance service is simply not providing the levels of service they should – patients are waiting too long and that is putting them at risk.”

The latest NHS figures show ambulance response times for the South West in October were again the worst in England for the most serious cases, following a similar outcome for September.

It took an average of almost 12 minutes to reach patients with life-threatening injuries or illnesses such as heart attacks, against a target of seven minutes.

The average response time for South Western Ambulance Service, which covers the region from Cornwall to Gloucestershire, was 11 minutes and 48 seconds for category one calls in October. The average for England was nine minutes and 20 seconds.

For less urgent emergencies such as strokes and burns, classed as category two the response time in the South West was much better compared to the other England trusts.

The average for the South Western service was 24 minutes and 25 seconds, against a target of 18 minutes.

That was third best out of the 11 trusts in England, where the overall average response time was 53 minutes and 54 seconds.

A spokesperson from South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust said: “We continue to experience the highest-ever level of sustained demand on our service.

“Our response times are directly affected by the time it takes us to handover patients into busy hospital emergency departments, which is longer than we have ever seen before.

“We are losing many more hours compared with recent years which causes our ambulances to queue outside hospitals and unable to respond to other patients and has an inevitable impact on the service we can provide. This is a health system problem which therefore demands a system solution.

“It is an absolute priority for us and our NHS partners to reduce these delays, so we can be there for our patients, while prioritising those who are most seriously injured and ill.

“Patients who need urgent medical help or advice are encouraged to visit or to call 111, which is free and available 24/7. This will ensure they get the right care, and the ambulance service can focus on those most in need.

“For on-going or non-urgent medical concerns or if they need medicines, people should contact their local GP surgery or a local pharmacy.”

Extract from www.dailymail.co.uk

• Shock poll sees Labour now sit six points clear in wake of the Tory sleaze scandal
• The survey revealed scale of public anger over Johnson’s handling of the crisis
• According to the poll, a Tory three-point lead last week is now a six-point deficit
• The rapid turnaround ramps up pressure on the Prime Minister to get a grip 

Devon has lost 493 community hospital beds since 2010, two-thirds of the total, and more than one in 10 of all hospital beds. In the same period, the population of Devon has risen and the number of elderly is up by almost a quarter.

Edward Oldfield www.devonlive.com 

The Health Secretary has asked a team of independent experts to review plans to close Teignmouth Hospital, the first built for the NHS after it was founded 73 years ago.

The move was welcomed by Teignmouth‘s MP Anne-Marie Morris, who has been arguing to keep the hospital open since doubts were first raised about its future in 2014.

She described the new review ordered by Secretary of State for Health Sajid Javid as “a fantastic step in the right direction” for local healthcare.

It is unlikely that the study will see the closure plans scrapped, but it could force Devon NHS to re-run consultation over its plans for a shake-up of services in south Devon.

That will give opponents another chance to argue the case to keep rehabilitation beds in the town.

Campaigners have been fighting the changes, which would see beds closed and services moved from the ageing buildings in Mill Lane to Dawlish Hospital, and a new £8million health centre in the town centre.

Campaigners say planners for the clinical commissioning group, which runs the NHS in Devon, have failed to prove the benefits of the move to rely on home care in the community.

They have called for a fundamental review of the policy shift across the NHS to move services out of community hospitals.

They say Devon has lost 493 community hospital beds since 2010, two-thirds of the total, and more than one in 10 of all hospital beds. In the same period, the population of Devon has risen and the number of elderly is up by almost a quarter.

Conservative MP Ms Morris – whose Newton Abbot constituency covers Teignmouth – said the review was a “vindication for those who have quite rightly raised concerns about the way in which the decision to close Teignmouth Hospital was reached”.

She said that if the review finds the changes are not in the best interests of the population, the panel is likely to ask for the consultation to be re-run, rather than halt the whole process.

The MP added: “However, this would therefore be an opportunity to reaffirm strongly the case for both keeping Teignmouth Hospital open and holding the CCG to account, ensuring they actually take into account and reassess the full health needs of the local community, especially post-Covid.”

She said if the consultation is re-run, the CCG should take into account the impact of Covid, review plans for home-based care, and run a separate consultation on the hospital closure.

Ms Morris said: “The reality is that whilst home-based care can often be most beneficial, it can also be unachievable due to both the healthcare needs of an individual and a limit on resources. Having rehabilitation beds at Teignmouth made sense for the community.”

The Devon group Save Our Hospital Services said in December, when the issue was first discussed at the county council’s health scrutiny committee: “County-wide as well as local campaigners are appalled by the way the public’s voice and all the evidence contrary to the CCG’s assertions has been completely ignored. Even worse, all this is planned to happen in the middle of the worst health crisis in the world for 100 years, when hospital beds for recuperation are desperately needed.”

A petition set up a year ago on Change.org under the title ‘Hands Off Teignmouth Hospital’, has been supported by more than 1,000 people.

It says: “The Hospital has been under threat of closure for three years. Local people have fought desperately to keep it. We need the in-patient beds, the health care services in the heart of town, and the facilities we have paid for through our fund-raising.

“During the pandemic, community hospitals have been used to help patients recover from the virus. But instead of bringing our hospital beds back into service, our local Clinical Commissioning Group is pushing ahead with its closure plans.

“The community deserves a new GP surgery. But we also need our hospital, owned and run by the NHS.”

The CCG has agreed proposals which would see community clinics moved to a new health and wellbeing centre, and specialist outpatient clinics and day case procedures move to Dawlish Hospital. It reversed a decision to establish 12 rehabilitation beds at the community hospital.

In March, the county council’s health committee reconsidered the plans and decided they were unhappy with the lack of consultation over the future of the site, which is controlled by the Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust.

The councillors asked the then Health Secretary Matt Hancock for a review.

Now, his successor Mr Javid has asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to assess the proposals.

Mr Javid told the county council he wants a report back by the middle of December.

Under the current plans, with no services left to be commissioned out of the existing hospital site, it would then be up to the Torbay and South Devon trust to determine its future.

A sale to reinvest finance in local NHS services is expected to be the most likely outcome.

A spokesperson for NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group said: “We’re aware of the referral to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP). We look forward to working with the IRP as they gather the information they need to make their recommendation to the Secretary of State.”

Rules are only for the “little” people – Owl

www.dailyrecord.co.uk

Boris Johnson had to be told three times before he finally followed rules and kept his face mask on for a hospital visit.

He was accused of “callous disregard” for the NHS after wandering around without one.

Susie Flintham of Covid-19 Families for Justice said: “ The PM was putting lives at risk completely unnecessarily by visiting a hospital and refusing to put his mask on, despite being repeatedly asked to.

“For him to make a point of posing for a photo without a mask is a slap in the face to bereaved families.”

Sources confirmed Hexham General Hospital chiefs emailed Johnson’s team before his visit to tell him masks must be worn in all areas.

They reminded him when he arrived, but he later took his off as he strolled along a corridor, sparking fury.

He was asked to put it back on again and complied. No10 had claimed he followed rules on face coverings.

But the hospital trust’s website says: “You must ensure that you wear your covering or mask throughout your visit.”

It added that the rules apply to everyone and all parts of the premises.

Ian Lavery, MP for the Wansbeck constituency in Northumberland, said: “People were astonished that the Prime Minister was bowling up the corridor of a hospital without a mask.

“This shows a callous disregard for patients, visitors and the fantastic workforce, who have been at the frontline throughout the pandemic.”

Hospital insiders had also claimed No10 had asked them not to comment to the press after the photograph of the Prime Minister not wearing a covering emerged.

Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust said it “apologised for any upset” after complaints from members of the public about the picture of maskless Johnson.

It added: “After the Prime Minister left a welcome meeting, he walked along a mezzanine corridor, for a very short period of time, without a mask.

“This brief moment was captured on camera. As soon as this was identified he was given a mask and he put it on. The Prime Minister did wear a mask for the majority of the visit.”

“Tory grandee Malcolm Rifkind issued a warning to the prime minister that he is in danger of becoming “a liability” to his party… “

Five ministers in Boris Johnson’s government are among a group of MPs who have claimed more than £1m from the taxpayer to cover their rent payments, while letting properties that they own in London.

www.independent.co.uk

Some 17 landlord MPs – 15 Conservatives and two Labour – have put their housing costs on expenses while earning more than £10,000 a year each renting out their own properties in recent years.

Former attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox sparked outrage after it emerged that he was claiming £1,900 a month for his taxpayer-funded flat while claiming a rental income from a home elsewhere in London.

An investigation by The Independent shows five current ministers have also claimed for rent while letting out homes in the capital, including international trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, defence secretary Ben Wallace, Foreign Office minister James Cleverly, prisons minister Victoria Atkins and junior Treasury minister John Glen.

It comes as Mr Johnson’s government faces growing pressure over a deluge of “sleaze” claims after last week’s botched attempt to rip up the disciplinary process and save ex-Tory MP Owen Paterson from suspension.

Tory grandee Malcolm Rifkind issued a warning to the prime minister that he is in danger of becoming “a liability” to his party and of being toppled by his own MPs if he fails to act on growing concerns about conduct rules and second jobs.

Sir Alistair Graham, the former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said the latest findings on second homes by The Independent were “shocking”. He called for an end to the “loophole” which allowed property-owning MPs to put their own rent on expenses and stay within the rules.

The standards veteran said: “It may be within the rules, but it’s quite wrong for MPs to use the public purse in this way. MPs have a duty to claim only public funds that are necessary.”

Sir Alistair added: “If there’s an opportunity to end the loophole allowing them to do this, then we must take it. There is growing feeling that the rules must change.”

Over the past five years, 17 MPs have claimed over £1.3m in taxpayer-funded rent while collecting thousands rent letting out properties in the capital, according to submissions published by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA).

Ms Trevelyan, the trade secretary, has claimed £106,000 in expenses for her own rental payments since April 2016. She also claims a rental income on a London flat she registered after she entered parliament in 2015.

Mr Wallace, the defence secretary, claimed more than £110,000 in taxpayer-funded rent between April 2016 and July 2020 – a period in which he was also collecting rent on a property in London.

Mr Cleverly has claimed more than £71,000 in expenses for his own rental payments since April 2016. The former Tory party chair charges the taxpayer £1,200 a month for the flat he lives in, while also receiving an income from a jointly-owned residential property in London.

It is understood that junior Home Office minister Ms Atkins’ claim for more than £43,000 in rent since April 2018 relates to her constituency home in Lincolnshire. Since April 2018 she has also been collecting rent on a house in London.

Other Tory MPs to have claimed for rental costs while letting residential property in London include former trade minister Dr Liam Fox, former media minister John Whittingdale, Philip Davies, Robert Goodwill, Laurence Robertson, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Anne Marie Morris and Greg Knight.

Conservative backbencher Damian Collins has the single largest rent expenses submission, claiming just over £148,000 from the taxpayer over the past five years, all while taking in a rental income from property in London.

Labour MP Geraint Davies has claimed just over £67,000 in taxpayer funding to rent a home between November 2017 and April 2021 – a period during which he also collecting rent payments letting out residential a property he owns in the capital.

Clive Betts, a fellow Labour backbencher, claimed just over £44,000 for rent between April 2016 and June 2018, the same period he also claimed rental income on a London home.

MPs have not been eligible to claim expenses for mortgage payments on their second homes in London since 2010 under changes brought in following the previous year’s expenses scandal.

But claims for rent are permitted under Ipsa rules, which state that MPs can receive taxpayer funding for “rental payments and associated costs”. An Ipsa document in 2017 conceded that some arrangements could be controversial – but advised against any change to the rules.

“We recognise that there can be a perception of personal gain if an MP receives rental income from their own property while living in an Ipsa-funded flat,” it said. “However … We do not want to judge an MP’s private arrangements and whether or not they should live in a property they own.”

Sir Geoffrey has been under fire following the disclosure that he stands to make more than £1m from outside legal work, including representing the British Virgin Islands in a corruption inquiry.

He is currently claiming £22,000 a year in taxpayer funding to rent a London home while collecting rent on another property he co-owns in the capital. A spokeswoman for the MP said: “Sir Geoffrey has acted at all times within the rules set by the IPSA.”

The Independent has contacted all 17 MPs named in this article for comment.

The Conservative MP Geoffrey Cox has agreed to an additional two weeks of work representing ministers from the British Virgin Islands this month while parliament is sitting, it has emerged.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

The former attorney general has come under intense scrutiny in recent days over his second job as a barrister, which has earned him almost £6m on top of his MP’s salary.

With the Conservative party facing a slew of sleaze allegations, government ministers have pointedly refused to defend Cox against allegations that he put lucrative outside work before his constituents – something he has denied.

While Cox will not travel to the Caribbean, and will only have to appear once before the inquiry panel looking into the country’s governance standards, he is scheduled to work on the complex inquiry from 15 to 26 November, official records show.

The commitments prompted renewed criticism of Cox’s focus on his parliamentary duties.

He is representing a series of British Virgin Islands (BVI) government figures, including the prime minister, Andrew Fahie, during a formal commission of inquiry examining claims of misgovernance and abuse of office.

He travelled to the country at various points since April this year, and used procedures in place amid Covid restrictions to cast proxy votes in his absence. Cox has also appeared virtually from his parliamentary office, prompting Labour to seek an investigation into whether this broke Commons rules against using such facilities for private work.

In the most recent meeting of the inquiry commission, on 22 October, the inquiry head, Sir Gary Hickinbottom, a retired British judge, set out times for future hearings, including those sought by the BVI attorney general, Dawn Smith, among those represented by Cox.

Smith had notified the commission “of dates of availability for counsel of her choice – I think that is Sir Geoffrey – for the period the 15 to 26 November”, Hickinbottom said, according to an official transcript of the hearing.

After Hickinbottom had set out this and various other logistical matters, Cox, who was appearing remotely from an unknown location, with the background blurred, replied: “I think our initial reaction is that most of those directions seem perfectly achievable.”

A spokesperson for Cox said this schedule did not mean Cox would appear before the commission throughout this period, when the Commons will be sitting.

“Sir Geoffrey is assisted by a legal team who will carry out most of the work,” they said. “Therefore, he will only need to make himself available for a period of approximately two hours on one day, during that time. This will not conflict with his parliamentary responsibilities.”

But asked what other duties Cox would have over the fortnight connected to the BVI inquiry aside from appearing before the commission panel, the spokesperson did not respond.

Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat chief whip, said: “Geoffrey Cox clearly sees being an MP as his second job. He absolutely no time or inclination to actually do the work his constituents sent him to Westminster to do.”

The Labour MP Andrew Gwynne said: “MPs should be in parliament representing their constituents. Boris Johnson’s refusal to act proves he’s lost control, doesn’t care, or both.”

Cox also makes money by renting out a three-bedroom flat overlooking Battersea Park in south London, one he and his wife bought in 2004 for £535,000. It is thought to be rented out for between £3,000 and £4,000 a month, a figure based on a comparison with similar rental properties in the area.

The tenants said they have had no direct contact with Cox, their landlord, and had simply rented the flat via an agency. Asking not to be named on Thursday, they said they had only moved in a few months earlier.

Despite owning a London property, which he has owned for more than a decade, records from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which pays MPs expenses, show that Cox had moved in November 2017, and started claiming £1,900 a month in rent for a separate residential property.

The purchase cost of the original flat was initially part-funded by taxpayer payments of £1,750 a month towards mortgage interest costs, after Cox was elected in 2005. This was under the old system of funding MPs although that was scrapped after the expenses scandal towards the end of the decade.

In August, Fahie refused to say how much his government was paying the law firm Withers for its overall legal representation, but said more than $3m (£2.25m) had been spent so far.

At one hearing, on 21 June, Cox stressed that the minister he was representing “accept entirely that it is central to the democratic idea that the purpose of elected office is to serve the public – it is not to enrich the office holder”.

A councillor in the South Hams was reduced to tears as she agreed to foot a £3,500 bill for a private garden waste collection that she thought would be paid by the council. 

Philip Churm, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

After the district council suspended brown bin collections because of problems with waste management company FCC, Cllr Nicky Hopwood (Cons, Woolwell) arranged for another firm to collect garden waste. 

Cllr Hopwood told residents it would be paid for out of her “locality budget,” a fund that supports local projects which benefit the community. 

However, Cllr Hopwood said she misinterpreted the advice she had been given and contracted the alternative waste collection firm without authorisation from the council. 

The matter was brought to a, sometimes-heated, special executive committee meeting on Thursday (11 November). 

Committee members heard that following the misinterpretation of officer advice, the member for Woolwell commissioned a local private contractor to carry out a one-off collection of garden waste bins. 

But it was suggested that useful lessons had been learned from the incident.  Councillors were told that the exercise provided a valuable learning process and addressed the overview and scrutiny committee’s concern that the option of recruiting third-party companies had not been sufficiently considered.

On Saturday 16 October Cllr Hopwood posted on her local Facebook page, saying: “I have managed to find a waste management company that will collect the brown bins from Woolwell over a period of three days and this will be FREE OF CHARGE to residents.

“The company is called Clearance4less and I have seen their waste carrier licence.  It is vital to have site of this licence for any kind of waste collection service. 

“I will pay the company out of my locality budget for a one off collection on Wednesday 20, Thursday 21 and Friday 22 October.” 

Cllr Hopwood was later informed that her actions were not authorised and could not be paid for out of the locality budget.  

Cllr Hopwood apologised to the executive group and said: “Members and officers may be aware that I organised a collection of brown bins within the Woolwell ward, which I represent. 

“I sought officer advice about paying for this to be done out of my locality budget. After misunderstanding the advice given I went ahead with what I had organised in all good faith.  

“I have since been contacted by the monitoring officer (David Fairburn, head of legal services and monitoring officer) and subsequently met with him.  

“He advises that not only was the organising of waste collections within my ward against what the executive had agreed, which was to suspend the garden waste service, but I informed residents that this would be paid for out of my locality budget as I had genuinely misunderstood the advice given by officers. 

“I offer an unreserved apology to both officers and members and have assured the monitoring officer that this will not happen again.”

Councillors then heard a recommendation that the executive “Reviews the learning from Woolwell and authorises payment for the services of the private contractor.” 

But the suggestion that the cost of the error should be met by South Hams District Council was met with some angry responses. 

Jacqi Hodgson (Green, Dartington & Staverton) said: “It’s very wrong to cover this payment. 

“It means any of us could come back say, ‘Oh, I made a mistake, I didn’t understand what my locality budget was for.’ 

“I mean, that just doesn’t ring true. Not after a few years of being a councillor. 

“So I just don’t think this should be allowed at all. Otherwise this meeting is going to be seen as just a cover up. And I just don’t think it’s good for the council.”

Some councillors were more sympathetic.  Cllr Mark Long (Ind, Salcombe and Thurlestone) said: “Her intent that she felt there was a need for brown bins to be cleared in her ward is one that we all agree with. 

“She went about it wrongly and did it completely the wrong way. But I think the intention was there, and I think – the thing is – a lot of other residents are doing exactly the same.”

Cllr Hopwood remained out the committee room for much of the time the discussion took place.  After detailed debate, the recommendation that the council pay for the mistake was withdrawn.

Cllr Hopwood briefly returned to the committee room and was in tears as she addressed members of the executive again.

She said: “After listening to the debate and not wishing to bring this council into disrepute, which is why I made my apology in the beginning, I will pay the invoice for £3,500 for the collection of garden waste within the ward I proudly represent, Woolwell, out of my own pocket. 

“I hope this brings to an end to the matter.”   

Garden waste collections in the South Hams were suspended in August and residents were told, last month, that the service would not be restored until at least spring 2022.

goodlawproject.org

When it comes to the Prime Minister’s allies, there’s a pattern emerging in Downing Street. When Boris Johnson doesn’t like the outcome of an official process, he tries to rip up the rules and start again. 

We saw it with the Owen Paterson scandal and we’re seeing it again now with the rigged appointment process for the new Chair of media regulator Ofcom. 

Paul Dacre is the former editor of the Daily Mail of 26 years, and Johnson’s preferred candidate for the top job at Ofcom. He’s in a bit of a pickle though, given that an interview panel deemed Mr Dacre “not appointable” just a few months ago. 

But that’s not stopping ministers, who are now shamelessly pushing to appoint Mr Dacre by adjusting the requirements of the role and re-running the recruitment process with a different interview panel. The ad for the role now includes an amended person specification, from which the requirement for the Chair to work “collegiately” has been removed.

Dacre is being allowed to reapply, even in the face of calls for him to be banned from doing so by a number of Conservative MPs. 

It all beggars belief. And unsurprisingly, we think this brazen string-pulling is unlawful. 

Lawyers acting for Good Law Project have today written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, stating that this “second competition raises very serious concerns, in particular as to whether it has been held, and designed, in order to favour Mr Dacre’s candidacy”.

Although the Secretary of State is responsible for the appointment of Ofcom’s Chair, Ofcom should be independent of both the Government and the services it regulates. The appointment process must follow the rules of the Governance Code for Public Appointments: whoever is hired should be selected on merit, through an open and fair process. 

The Governance Code for Public Appointments does allow for Ministers to appoint someone who is not deemed “appointable” by the Assessment Panel. But there are safeguards built into the Governance Code: they must first consult the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and they are required to explain their reasons and justify their decision publicly.

The reason why Ofcom must remain independent of Government is the same reason the media must remain independent of Government: neither can do their job if they are in the Government’s pocket.

We’re asking the Secretary of State to explain why the competition for Chair is being rerun and why Mr Dacre is being allowed to reapply. 

We want proper answers from the Government. If we don’t get them, we expect to take legal action.

Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from ordinary people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here.