Council’s told to put overspends into separate accounts for three years

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

The funding system for special educational needs is “broken,” the boss of Devon County Council says, with the authority’s total overspend on the service set to rise to almost £90 million.

The government has told councils to put overspends for supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) into separate accounts for three years until April 2023, while it develops a new plan to fund provision.

It means Devon’s effective debt on the service – currently forecast to reach £88 million by April – does not currently count towards its main revenue figures, However, the council is concerned about what will happen when the ring-fencing arrangement ends next year.

At this week’s council cabinet, Councillors were told that discussions with the Department for Education were ongoing, and a deal could be reached by the end of March.

The county council entered the current financial year with an overspend of £49 million in its SEND account. It expects to add a further £39 million to the debt for 2021/2, according to the latest budget report presented to the meeting.

Speaking on the issue, chief executive Phil Norrey said: “We don’t know whether it will come back [onto the balance sheet] at that point or not, or how it will be dealt with.”

“But the expectation is that those local authorities with a deficit, or a significant deficit, will have to work with government to try and reduce that before whatever happens next to that lump of money.”

Describing it as a “national problem,” Dr Norrey added: “It’s not only right of the top of the agenda of the DfE, but it’s up there with the treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.”

He expects the government will soon publish a consultation paper on changing the system, “based on the experience of the fact that this is a broken system. It doesn’t actually work. It doesn’t deliver what parents and carers want and financially it is unsustainable across the country.”

The high cost of independent specialist provision was cited as one of the main reasons why Devon was spending so much. Dr Norrey told councillors the cost per youngster was £47,000, compared to £12,000 in a maintained special school.

“That gives you an indication of the fact that somehow we’ve got to recalibrate the system,” he said.

“We’ve got to get more youngsters flourishing in mainstream settings in the first instance, more youngsters being supported in maintained special schools locally and fewer in very expensive independent specialist provision. That’s going to take a long time to do.”

Director of children’s services Melissa Caslake said there was an “action plan” to tackle the SEND overspend, including investment and plans to increase special school places provided by the council.

“That will reduce the amount of children that we are having at the moment to place in independent special schools including some in residential special schools as well – the cost of those are far beyond the cost of us effectively providing our own special school places,” she said.

“That will have a significant impact, but obviously those places in different schools, different locations, will be coming on stream at different times over the next few years.”

Ms Caslake hopes a deal with the Department for Education, billed as a ‘safety valve intervention programme,’ will be finalised by the end of March.

A report for the cabinet on the budget says a “package of reform” will bring the overspend under control.

Leader of the council John Hart (Bickleigh & Wembury) said: “Devon is not an outlier. Every local authority with SEND responsibility has got the same problem.

“Others have got a bigger problem because they did not have the money that we actually had in our coffers for the rainy day and whatever way you want to look at this, it is a budget line that is off-budget.

“In private practice, if you decided to put a set of accounts up and you actually had this kind of money offset and not being shown as a liability to your company, you’d be done for fraud.

“It is a serious issue as far as local government is concerned, but we’ve had to spend the money to pay the bills and we do need at some stage government clarity and hopefully government reimbursement for that money.”

At the start of the debate, Councillor Alan Connett (Lib Dem, Exminster & Haldon), leader of the opposition, expressed concern about the debt figure, warning: “£88.1 million is more than 50 per cent of the council’s free reserves – it is a significant deficit that the council is carrying.”

“I think the council needs to be aware of what the precise actions are that bring that into balance because I’m reading the euphemism to mean there will need to be cuts somewhere – you may call them savings in other services …or there’s going to be some kind of management on the provision of services for the people who rely on these high needs.”

He said some parents were saying it was taking a “rather long time” to get through the process for provision and that they were “beginning to believe that this is being managed to stall provision of services for children with special needs.” This was denied by Ms Caslake.

Cllr Connett called for a plan “that should be set out for all councillors and the public about how this very significant deficit is going to be dealt with.

“[We need to know] what it actually means in reality, how the savings are going to be made to bring it back into balance? Because I think what we’re hearing is that there is not going to be a significant grant from government to balance the books for the chronic under funding, which has led to this deficit.”

Councillor Rob Hannaford (Exwick & St Thomas), leader of the Labour group, agreed for the need for a “proper report,” but said: “It is my understanding, I believe, that we are in negotiations with the government to pay this back in various instalments, so I hope that will give some comfort.”

“However, what I will say is I would still put on the record that it’s very unjust that we are having to pay back this money to any great extent because we were given these responsibilities by the government.

“It’s things that we should be doing for those children that need this work, but nevertheless, it should have come with a proper package of funding from central government, and I’m still concerned as part of those negotiations and paybacks that it will mean cuts to other services.”

Boris Johnson is facing calls to resign after he admitted attending a lockdown party in Downing Street during the pandemic.

Seth Thévoz www.opendemocracy.net

But it is far from the first time the prime minister has been caught seemingly breaking the rules with impunity.

Johnson claims the “bring your own booze” event held at Number 10 on 20 May 2020 did not “technically” break the strict rules in place at the time. Lawyers, fact-checkers and even some of his own MPs disagree.

The prime minister told Parliament yesterday: “I must take responsibility.” But his record suggests he rarely, if ever, does so.

Here are some of his most egregious breaches – or alleged breaches – that have resulted in little more than a slap on the wrist; and, in some cases, nothing at all.

‘Unlawful’ suspension of Parliament

In the lead up to Brexit, Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament in 2019, marking one of the most controversial chapters of his premiership. The move was later ruled unlawful and unanimously struck down by the Supreme Court. Judges declined to speculate on Johnson’s motives, but the Scottish Court of Sessions said Johnson’s advice to the Queen was “motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament”.

Sanction: None for Johnson. Prorogation overturned by Supreme Court.

Jennifer Arcuri

When Johnson was mayor of London, he arranged £126,000 of taxpayer money in grants for the American tech entrepreneur, Jennifer Arcuri. He also arranged for her to accompany him on overseas trips. But Arcuri has since released a diary claiming the pair had a four-year affair. She alleges that he offered at the time: “How can I be the thrust – the throttle – your mere footstep as you make your career? Tell me: how I can help you? [sic]” Johnson has never declared their relationship in any register of interests, as would be required. Nor has he explicitly denied the affair took place, although he has repeatedly said he did nothing wrong.

Sanction: Investigations ongoing.

The Downing Street refurb

Amid reports of expensive work to Johnson’s flat, he told MPs: “I paid for [the] Downing Street refurbishment personally.” In reality, it had initially been paid with a secret £52,000 loan from Conservative Party funds in 2020, then with an unlawful, undeclared donation from Lord Brownlow, which prompted a £17,800 fine for the party.

Johnson reimbursed the cost only in 2021, after news reports exposed the secret deal. For eight months, he repeatedly broke the ministerial code, by leaving the source of the money undeclared.

Sanction: None for Johnson. Conservative Party fined £17,800.

Great Exhibition 2 ‘corruption’

Johnson spent more than a year obfuscating his “lost”’ WhatsApp messages to Tory donor Lord Brownlow. In them, Johnson asked for tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of flat redecorations, whilst encouraging Brownlow’s “great exhibition plan”. Labour’s Angela Rayner has called it a clear example of “corruption”.

Sanction: None.

Lying to Parliament over partygate?

It seems likely that Johnson lied to the House of Commons over partygate – which is a breach of parliamentary rules. Last month, he claimed: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no COVID rules were broken.” Reports have since emerged of at least nine Downing Street parties in lockdown, and Johnson has admitted he attended at least one himself. Just 6% of British people think he has told the truth.

Sanction: Investigations ongoing.

Changing the rules

Johnson made a botched attempt to change the entire system for disciplining MPs, so as to save his friend Owen Paterson from being suspended as an MP after a lobbying scandal. Lord Evans, chair of the committee on standards in public life, accused him of failing to uphold the key principles of public life, saying it was a “very serious and damaging moment for Parliament”.

Sanction: None. The government later quietly dropped the plans.

The undeclared food

Over eight months in 2020, Johnson secretly received £27,000 of luxury organic food, hand-delivered on a bike by the butler of a Tory donor, Lord Bamford. The prime minister paid for it at ‘cost price’ – £18,900 – with the discount being a donation from Bamford’s wife. Johnson never declared the £8,100 gift, in another apparent breach of transparency rules.

Sanction: None.

‘Cash for peerages’

The prime minister was accused of presiding over a ‘cash for peerages’ scandal last year, following an investigation by openDemocracy and The Sunday Times. A former party chair explained: “Once you pay your £3m, you get your peerage.” Some £54m has been raised from 22 major Tory donors in 11 years – all of whom have subsequently gone to the Lords. MPs called for a criminal investigation, but the Met Police declined.

Sanction: None.

Overruling his last ethics adviser

Johnson’s previous ethics adviser, Alex Allan, found home secretary Priti Patel guilty of bullying her staff. But Johnson disliked the findings and simply reversed them, clearing his close ally Patel. Allan, a widely respected career civil servant, resigned in disgust.

Sanction: None. The High Court upheld Allan’s advice but said Johnson had not broken rules.

Putting his entire government in breach of the Ministerial Code

Amid controversy over the Downing Street refurb last year, openDemocracy revealed that Boris Johnson seemingly attempted to quash the scandal by simply not appointing a new ethics adviser – so no one could oversee the list of ministers’ interests. This meant the post remained vacant for six months and left every single member of his government in breach of the Ministerial Code, which says a twice-yearly list of interests should be published.

Sanction: None.

Obstructing his own ethics adviser

When Johnson was first accused of breaking rules over the Downing Street refurb in 2021, he commissioned his new ethics adviser, Lord Geidt, to investigate. Geidt’s report cleared the prime minister, but he has since seriously criticised Johnson for withholding “highly material” WhatsApp messages – something Geidt realised only after watching the news seven months later. Geidt retaliated by publishing the embarrassing WhatsApp messages in full.

Sanction: Apology.

Holiday in Mustique

Johnson was rapped on the knuckles by the parliamentary standards commissioner over a luxury holiday. He had wrongly declared the £15,000 Mustique getaway in 2020, organised by a Tory donor David Ross. The commissioner found that the PM had been so chaotic that she was still “unable to conclude what Mr Johnson’s register entry should have contained” and criticised him for resisting giving more details.

Sanction: Criticised by a watchdog, but cleared of breaching rules.

Simply ignoring the regulator

The House of Lords Appointments Commission vets all nominees to the House of Lords and can veto “unsuitable” candidates. This happened in 2020, when it tried to block a peerage for Johnson’s friend, the billionaire Tory donor Peter Cruddas. But Johnson simply ignored the veto and appointed Cruddas anyway. No prime minister has ever done this before. Cruddas denies any wrongdoing.

Sanction: None.

Plans to breach international law

In the rush to secure a Brexit deal, Boris Johnson announced plans to breach international law in the case of a ‘no-deal Brexit’. His government admitted the measures would have been unlawful in a “specific and limited way”. The president of the Law Society of England and Wales responded, saying: “The rule of law is not negotiable.”

Sanction: None. The plans were overturned and a Brexit deal was agreed.

Property dealings

If MPs deal in any property worth over £100,000, they have to declare it within 28 days. Johnson acquired a 20% share in a Somerset farm in 2018, but waited a whole year to register it. He claimed he “misunderstood” the rules; but the Committee on Standards was less than impressed, pointing out he had only just been reprimanded over a separate rule-breaking incident.

Sanction: Apology and briefing about the rules.

Nine breaches of Parliamentary rules

In 2018, the parliamentary standards commissioner rebuked Johnson for nine different breaches of parliamentary rules in one year, after he was late to declare financial interests. These included an extra £52,000 in income and joint ownership of a London property.

Sanction: Apology.

Telegraph column

When he quit as foreign secretary in 2018, Johnson resumed his lucrative Telegraph column just days later. He was accused of breaking the ministerial code – because ministers are meant to wait at least three months after leaving government before taking up a business appointment.

Sanction: None.

London appointments

The Evening Standard championed Boris Johnson’s election as mayor of London. He later tried to appoint the paper’s former editor to run the Arts Council in London – despite the judging panel saying she was not qualified. He was accused of breaching rules on public appointments.

Sanction: None.

Paul Millar www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

I recently went for my booster jab on a quiet weekday morning at my local GP surgery situated in the Ward I represent. 

I thank all the doctors, nurses and support staff at the Raleigh Surgery, for the huge amount of work they’ve done and are doing to facilitate walk-in appointments while keeping the rest of the show on the road. Their resilience is quite unbelievable. 

What I found out from a nurse while there was that take-up for the booster has been lower than hoped. We speculated that this could be because people didn’t want to deal with unpleasant side effects during the Christmas break. What has shaken their morale is that their surgery has been under capacity to make room for booster jobs for people many of whom never came, meaning other important appointments and treatments have been delayed. 

For many workers in the NHS, the heroes of the pandemic, morale is now rock bottom – I regularly think of the usually very placid nurse I know who lives in my Ward and works at the RD&E who in a recent conversation expressed his rage following the stories of parties at 10 Downing Street and the sense that the government can do what they like. 

The sacrifice NHS workers have made, for a derisory 2% annual pay rise, is far greater than government. No wonder the NHS vacancies – they are not valued.

I am in the Labour Party because, despite their faults, they see well-funded public services and a strong economy as two sides of the same coin. They respect our public services. 

Since Labour lost power in 2010 following years of investment in the NHS, fixing the roof while the sun was shining, the Tories have cut things to the bone. We have a recruitment crisis because of the removal nursing bursaries. 

While it’s not racist to be concerned about net migration, the rhetoric used by some Tory spokespeople – the ‘Go Home’ vans for example – has led to good doctors and nurses emigrating. 

The Tory-led top-down reorganisation a decade ago has left GPs surgeries in crisis. Try getting a GP appointment now – it is certainly not a fault of the GPs. 

Following a series of debilitating lockdowns in which many people have lived more unhealthy and solitary lives, we more than ever, need a long-term NHS with the capacity to help us.

Although lockdowns have saved many lives, we may come to reflect on the first global pandemic for over a century and lessons we can learn. There was no digital communication or remote working during the Spanish Flu. I think of the majorly damaging effects on physical and mental health of not at least keeping some exercise facilities open throughout.

Regular social exercise is a hugely significant contributor to us maintaining a good quality of life and preventing loneliness, obesity and heart disease. 

I believe all outdoor sports, as well as indoor activities where social distancing is possible, should never have been stopped for this reason. Tennis, rugby, golf, football, badminton and group exercise classes would have been valuable to many during these difficult times, including myself. 

I have realised this since these facilites reopened. Regaining my fitness and playing my favourite sports have restored a sense of self-worth, hope and zest for life.

Many of our local sport and exercise facilities are jointly owned and funded by the council and the excellent charity Leisure East Devon. 

One of my favourite roles on the council is as vice chair of the council’s LED forum where we are working to create a new strategy which makes it more affordable for local people to use our facilities and improve the ones we have. 

Unfortunately, the last local strategy was allowed to run out of date by the previous Conservative Council, voted out in May 2019 (a fact, not spin).

Now, sport and exercise is front and centre of our priorities of the local council, with a new, improved and deliverable Playing Pitch Strategy on its way too. 

Nationally, for as long as he remains Prime Minister, Boris Johnson must help us by committing to more investment into local exercise facilities and grassroots sport.

Full list of Tories calling for Boris Johnson to resign – and those still backing the PM

www.telegraph.co.uk

Boris Johnson faced a barrage of criticism from his own MPs on Wednesday over his attendance at a Downing Street garden party at the height of lockdown last year. 

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Johnson acknowledged the public’s “rage” over the party on May 20 2020, but insisted that he thought the event could technically have been within the rules. 

He told MPs he went to the gathering for around 25 minutes to “thank groups of staff”, adding that he “believed implicitly that this was a work event”. 

However, his apology appears to have done little to quell mounting anger among Tory politicians over the incident, and a number of MPs and MSPs across the nation have called on him to resign. 

The prominent call for his resignation came from Douglass Ross, the leader of the Scottish Tories, who said that the Prime Minister’s position was “no longer tenable”. A host of MSPs followed Mr Ross’s lead in calling for Mr Johnson to go.

But a number of Cabinet ministers also rallied behind the Prime Minister on Wednesday evening to publicly shore up his support.

Below is the full list of Tory MPs who have called on Mr Johnson to stand down so far: 

1. Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Tories

“I said, yesterday, if the Prime Minister attended this gathering, event in Downing Street on May 20 2020, he could not continue as Prime Minister so, regretfully, I have to say his position is no longer tenable,” Mr Ross said on Wednesday. 

“There was one simple question to answer yesterday, indeed, from Monday night when we saw this invitation which was to more than 100 people asking them to join others in the Downing Street garden and bring their own booze.

“If the Prime Minister was there, and he accepted today that he was, then I felt he could not continue.

“What we also heard from the Prime Minister today was an apology and he said with hindsight he would have done things differently, which for me is an acceptance from the Prime Minister that it was wrong and therefore, I don’t want to be in this position, but I am in this position now, where I don’t think he can continue as leader of the Conservatives.”

2. William Wragg – MP, vice chairman of the 1922 Committee 

Mr Wragg suggested Mr Johnson should take the decision to resign himself. He told the BBC that it was “a tragedy things have come to pass in this way”, adding: “Unfortunately, I wasn’t reassured. I fear this is simply going to be a continuing distraction to the good governance of the country.”

He said it would be “preferable” for Mr Johnson to offer his resignation himself as MPs were “tired” and “frankly worn out of defending what is invariably indefensible”.

“I don’t believe it should be left to the findings of a civil servant to determine the future of the Prime Minister and indeed who governs this country. I think it is for the Conservative Party, if not the Prime Minister, in fact, to make that decision, and to realise what is in the best interest, so that we can move forward both as a party and a country,” he said. 

He added that “no doubt the Prime Minister is reflecting deeply on what has happened, but I cannot in all sincerity see a way where these issues go away”.

“It is deeply unfortunate, but I’m afraid it is… the inevitable conclusion is the only way to do that is with a change,” he said.

3. Sir Roger Gale – MP

“I’m sorry, you don’t have ‘bring a bottle’ work events in Downing Street, so far as I’m aware. And you don’t have ‘bring a bottle’ work events that are advertised or invited by the Prime Minister’s private secretary,” he said. 

“The Prime Minister said on Dec 8 from the despatch box that he was reliably assured that there were no parties – well, we now know there was at least one party and probably more, and that at least one of them, the one he spent at least 25 minutes at, he attended.

“So he knew there was a party, so he misled the House. He said he believed there were no parties but he attended one – how do you square that circle?”

He added: “I think the time has come for either the Prime Minister to go with dignity as his choice, or for the 1922 Committee to intervene.”

4. Caroline Nokes – MP

Ms Nokes, the MP for Romsey and Southampton North, on Wednesday night become the fourth Tory MP to call for Boris Johnson to resign.

She told ITV’s Peston the PM had “put himself in an impossible position”, and added: “The message I’ve had from my constituents is they feel let down they feel disappointed, and I know how hard they worked through the pandemic to abide by the rules.”

She said: “They now see that the Prime Minister wasn’t in it together with them, that the rules were being broken in Downing Street, and that’s very serious.”

Ms Nokes said she recognised Mr Johnson “did a fantastic job” at the 2019 election, but she said: “Now regretfully, he looks like a liability, and I think he either goes now, or he goes in three years’ time at a general election, and it’s up to the party to decide which way around that’s going to be. I know my thoughts are is that he’s damaging us now.”

5. Andrew Bridgen – MP

Andrew Bridgen, who backed Mr Johnson to be leader in June 2019, said he should stand aside within three months.

Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Bridgen warned of “a moral vacuum at the heart of our Government” in the wake of the “partygate” revelations, adding: “Sadly, the Prime Minister’s position has become untenable.

The  Tory MSPs who have echoed Douglas Ross’s calls for Boris Johnson to go:

Miles Briggs, Alexander Burnett, Donald Cameron, Jackson Carlaw, Russell Findlay, Maurice Golden, Meghan Gallacher, Jamie Halcro-Johnston, Craig Hoy, Liam Kerr, Stephen Kerr, Murdo Fraser, Douglas Lumsden, Liz Smith, Sue Webber, Annie Wells, Brian Whittle, Edward Mountain, Sharon Dowey and Finlay Carson.

Tory MPs who have voiced support for Mr Johnson:

1. Rishi Sunak, Chancellor (Jan 12,  8.11pm)

“The PM was right to apologise and I support his request for patience while Sue Gray carries out her enquiry,” he wrote on Twitter. 

2. Nadine Dorries, Culture Secretary (Jan 12, 3.04pm, and Jan 13, 8.37am)

“PM was right to personally apologise earlier. People are hurt and angry at what happened and he has taken full responsibility for that. The inquiry should now be allowed to its work and establish the full facts of what happened,” she wrote on Twitter. 

The following morning, Ms Dorries added: “[The Prime Minister has] constantly taken the right decisions. More people jabbed, more antivirals and testing than the rest of EU is giving us the most open and fastest-growing economy.

“400,000 more [are] back in work than at the start of the pandemic. [We] kept jobs with furlough, self-employed grants and industries standing.

“This despite every doomster and gloomster party political prediction from Labour that decisions taken by Government throughout pandemic would result in mass unemployment and a tanking economy. They were wrong throughout the pandemic at every juncture. They are wrong now.”

3. Liz Truss, Foreign Secretary (Jan 12, 9.14pm)

“The Prime Minister is delivering for Britain – from Brexit to the booster programme to economic growth. I stand behind the Prime Minister 100 per cent as he takes our country forward,” she tweeted. 

4. Dominic Raab, Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister (Jan 12, 3.15pm)

“I’m fully supportive of this Prime Minister and I’m sure he will continue for many years to come,” he said, adding that it was a “daft question” when asked whether he would run for the Tory leadership. 

5. Sajid Javid, Health Secretary (Jan 12, 4.43pm)

“I completely understand why people feel let down. The PM did the right thing by apologising,” he said. 

“Now we need to let the investigation complete its work. We have so much to get on with including rolling out boosters, testing and antivirals – so we can live with Covid.”

6. Grant Shapps, Transport Secretary (Jan 12, 6.45pm)

“I think the Prime Minister was very contrite today, he apologised and he took full responsibility,” he told Times Radio. 

7. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons (Jan 12, 5.40pm)

“I think the Prime Minister has got things right again and again and again,” he said. 

“But like us all, he accepts that during a two-and-a-half-year period, there will be things that with hindsight would have been done differently.”

8. George Eustice, Environment Secretary (Jan 12, 5.30pm)

Asked if the Prime Minister will resign if Sue Gray’s report found wrongdoing, Mr Eustice said: “I don’t think we should get ahead of ourselves here. We should take this a step at a time.”

9. Steve Barclay, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Jan 12, 8.32pm)

“The PM did the right thing by apologising in Parliament. We should now let the investigation complete its work and I support the PM’s request for patience so that Sue Gray is able to do so,” he said. 

10. Therese Coffey, Work and Pensions Secretary (Jan 12, 6.53pm)

“I agree with Nadine. I was at PMQs today. I saw how sincere the PM was and I know how he has worked tirelessly to tackle coronavirus, striving to protect lives and livelihoods,” she wrote. 

11. Nadhim Zahawi, Education Secretary (Jan 12, 6.25pm)

Retweeted Nadine Dorries’s initial statement

12. Oliver Dowden, Conservative Party chairman (Jan 12, 5.03pm)

“Worth watching important apology from PM today. Let’s allow Sue Gray to do her job while we get on with ours – rolling out the vaccine, keeping the economy open and driving jobs recovery,” he wrote. 

13. Suella Braverman, Attorney General (Jan 12, 8.07pm)

“Got Brexit done. World-beating vaccine roll-out. 400,000 more jobs than pre-Covid. Keeping schools open & children learning. Building back better for all. All thanks to the leadership of Boris Johnson,” she wrote. 

14. Alok Sharma, Cop26 President (Jan 12, 6.28pm)

“The Prime Minister was right to apologise. We now need to let Sue Gray complete her investigation,” he wrote. 

15. Kwasi Kwarteng, Business Secretary (Jan 12, 6.28pm)

Mr Kwarteng backed Mr Johnson in a WhatsApp group of MPs, saying he had been “absolutely right to apologise” and a focus was needed on “top priorities” such as Brexit dividends and levelling-up.

16. Anne-Marie Trevelyan, International Trade Secretary (Jan 12, 5.25pm)

Ms Trevelyan described the Prime Minister’s apology as “needed and heard” but insisted Boris Johnson had been “relentless in [his] determination to protect us” against Covid.

17. Ben Wallace, Defence Secretary (Jan 12, 7.12pm)

18. Priti Patel, Home Secretary (Jan 12, 3.39pm)

19. Brandon Lewis, Northern Ireland Secretary (Jan 12, 10.05pm)

20. Michael Gove, Housing and Levelling Up Secretary (Jan 12, 3.22pm)

21. Simon Hart, Wales Secretary (Jan 12, 10.13pm)

22. Simon Clarke, Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Jan 12, 5.47pm)

23. Michael Fabricant, MP for Lichfield (Jan 13, 9.01am)

“I confess to voting against John Major and Theresa May in votes of no confidence – so I am no loyalist,” Mr Fabricant, a veteran Tory MP, tweeted. “But Boris delivered Brexit, the best vaccination programme in Europe and first in the world, and in England is likely soon to leave Covid behind. He delivers and has my full support.”

24. Stuart Anderson, MP for Wolverhampton South West (Jan 13, 8.45am)

Mr Anderson tweeted his agreement with Brandon Lewis that Boris Johnson “will win the next election”.

25. Michelle Donelan, MP for Chippenham (Jan 12, 9.54pm)

Ms Donelan, the universities minister, wrote: “PM was right to personally apologise today – so many made sacrifices sometimes heart wrenching ones so understandably people are angry and hurting which is why as the Prime Minister said we need to let the inquiry take place.”

26. James Cleverly, MP for Braintree and former Tory chairman (Jan 12, 8.05pm)

“As I said earlier today to the press in Brussels, the PM was absolutely right to make an apology today and explain what happened,” Mr Cleverly said. “It is now right to await Sue Gray’s findings.”

27. Nigel Adams, minister without portfolio (Jan 12, 7.09pm)

Mr Adams said Nadine Dorries’s comments were “spot on”.

28. Kit Malthouse, policing minister (Jan 12, 6.37pm)

“In the short time he has been PM, Boris Johnson has delivered on the people’s vote on Brexit, created a new electoral coalition and steered the country through Covid so we are likely to be the first major economy to emerge from the pandemic,” Mr Malthouse tweeted.

29. Mark Jenkinson, MP for Workington (Jan 12, 4.37pm)

“Boris Johnson continues to have my support as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party. He also maintains the support of the parliamentary party, and of the majority of my constituents… they see this as an exciting period for Britain.”

30. Chris Philp, technology minister (Jan 12, 3.37pm)

Mr Philp said Nadine Dorries was “right” in saying the Prime Minister had been correct to apologise.

31. Damian Collins, MP for Folkestone and Hythe (Jan 12, 3.16pm)

“The PM was right to apologise today for not stopping the event in the garden of Number 10.”

Oh dear, Rishi Sunak must have experienced a mobile dead spot during his visit to North Devon, how annoying for him! – Owl

www.independent.co.uk (Extract)

Downing Street has insisted that Boris Johnson has the “full support” of his cabinet, despite the long delay on Wednesday before Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss publicly voiced their backing following his dramatic apology over Downing Street parties.

Mr Sunak’s absence from the House of Commons for prime minister’s questions sparked speculation in Westminster that he was distancing himself from Mr Johnson, fuelled by the far from full-throated wording of his eventual tweet…..

…Mr Sunak’s decision to spend the day in Devon discussing a government jobs initiative had already raised eyebrows at Westminster.

And his eventual tweet at 8.11pm appeared to suggest that he was withholding a final decision on his attitude towards the PM until after the report by civil servant Sue Gray into the parties.

“I’ve been on a visit all day today continuing work on our #PlanforJobs as well as meeting MPs to discuss the energy situation,” rote the chancellor. “The PM was right to apologise and I support his request for patience while Sue Gray carries out her enquiry.”

Coincidentally, Owl has been informed by a correspondent that, over the past couple of weeks, core samples have been taken along the path of the Victorian sewer discharge pipe that runs from the Lime Kiln car park at Budleigh, under the Otter to the Otter Head. 

Renewing this pipe under the estuary to continue to allow untreated sewage discharges into the sea just east of Otter Head, is being done in parallel with the £15M Otter Restoration Project, financed partly by South West Water. Essentially this maintains the status quo.

According to the River Trust data, this pipe discharged 60 times in 2020 for a total of 591 hours.

Threat to cut dirty water chiefs’ bonuses

Ben Webster www.thetimes.co.uk

Bosses of water companies that regularly breach permits by discharging raw sewage into rivers and the sea should be stripped of their annual bonuses, MPs will recommend in a report today.

The Commons Environmental Audit Committee will call for an urgent review of the system by which water companies self-monitor their sewage works. It warns that a “chemical cocktail” of sewage, slurry and plastic is polluting England’s rivers and putting public health and nature at risk.

The report calls for much tougher regulation, saying successive governments, water companies and regulators “have grown complacent and seem resigned to maintaining pre-Victorian practices of dumping sewage in rivers”.

The report notes the latest Environment Agency data, which shows that all rivers and lakes monitored in England failed tests for chemical pollution and 84 per cent did not meet the government’s target of good ecological status.

It says poor river water quality is the result of chronic underinvestment by water companies and multiple failures in monitoring, governance and enforcement. “Water companies appear to be dumping untreated or partially treated sewage in rivers regularly, often breaching the terms of permits that only allow this in exceptional circumstances,” the report adds.

It says most swimmers and other river users cannot find out when it is safe to use them because of a lack of information about sewage discharges.

The revelation in last year’s prosecution of Southern Water that billions of litres of sewage were deliberately dumped into the sea over several years raised “obvious and urgent questions” about the system of self-monitoring.

The committee accuses Ofwat, the regulator, of focusing on keeping bills down rather than ensuring adequate investment. The MPs accuse Liv Garfield, the chief executive of Severn Trent, who was paid £2.8 million in 2020, including £1.9 million in bonuses, of making a “disingenuous” claim in evidence to the committee that storm overflow discharges were “pretty much already rainwater”.

The report says discharges can be highly contaminated with raw sewage and “to claim otherwise shows a disregard for the public’s concern about water quality in rivers”. The report demands “far more assertive regulation and enforcement from Ofwat and the Environment Agency to restore our rivers to their natural glory”.

It calls on Ofwat to examine its powers “with a view to limiting the awards of significant annual bonuses to water company senior executives in the event of major or persistent breaches in permit conditions”.

Other recommendations include:

• The government should set “challenging improvement targets and timetables” for reducing the impact of sewage discharges.

• Ofwat should prioritise long-term investment in wastewater when setting the prices water companies can charge.

• The industry should provide real-time, easily accessible information on sewage discharges.

• At least one popular stretch of river should be designated for bathing in each water company area by 2025 at the latest.

• A review of sentencing guidelines for water pollution offences to ensure that companies act.

• A ban on wet wipes containing plastic because they cause “fatbergs as big as blue whales” that block sewers.

Severn Trent said it believed an average of about 90 per cent of the discharge from its overflows was rainwater. Water UK, which represents water companies, said: “Water companies want to invest more and are pushing the government to encourage the economic regulator, Ofwat, to enable this increased spending over the next decade.”

The Environment Agency said improvements to rivers had “flatlined over the last ten years” and that water companies, regulators and farmers must do more to protect them.

Christine Colvin, of The Rivers Trust, said the report was a “devasting indictment on the status quo”.

“We need to get real. This problem has arisen because of chronic, long-term under investment in sewers, water quality monitoring, and regulation. It will take billions of pounds over decades to fix, which society has to pay for. This is everyone’s responsibility to solve. 

“We can’t just keep dumping the costs on nature, because it can only take so much punishment before it breaks, with dead rivers and water that kills. I don’t want to live in that country.” Prof Hannah Cloke, Professor of Hydrology at the University of Reading

Owl really doesn’t need to add anything to this catalogue of expert comments:

www.sciencemediacentre.org  January 13, 2022

A report on the water quality in UK rivers has been published by the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC).

Dr Veronica Edmonds-Brown, senior lecturer in aquatic ecology from the University of Hertfordshire, said:

“Water companies and communities are dealing with a lack of infrastructure. Even though more housing is being built, these developments are connected to existing systems which are mostly of Victorian origin and over capacity. New developments increase local surface run off by 8 – 18% and this must go somewhere. If more housing is to be built, more money needs to be spent on infrastructure. Not doing so will lead to more flooding events, like we saw in London last summer.

“The bodies responsible for our drainage systems, drainage boards, local authorities and water companies all have different priorities, and action taken against pollution is often not joined up. Misconnections, where wastewater drains into the surface water drains instead of the sewage pipes, were not mentioned in the report and it is a big problem, particularly for urban rivers. Plumbing sewage and black wastewater into surface water drains is much more common than is acknowledged and difficult to rectify. Bacteria is often used to find misconnection hotspots, but these are not picked up unless they are looked for. Unlike beaches, bacteria testing in rivers is only done if there is concern, not as routine.

“There are several solutions to improve the water quality of our rivers. A national capital project is needed to improve drainage and sewage infrastructure in new developments. All new builds should also be checked for misconnections, and all homeowners should be legally responsible for assessing misconnections before selling the property. There should also be an over-arching body that deals with drainage and can work alongside different authorities. And finally, bacteria testing should be routine for rivers like bathing beaches.”

Dr Eulyn Pagaling, environmental microbiologist at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland, said:

“We agree with the conclusions from the Environmental Audit Committee on the water quality of English rivers and agree with the recommendations for improving the state of these aquatic environments. Amongst the issues highlighted was the prevalence of emerging contaminants, including persistent chemical pollutants, microplastics and antimicrobial resistance.

“Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest challenges we face today, and we could potentially enter a post-antibiotic era where minor infections can have serious health consequences. Microplastics and chemical pollutants exacerbate this risk by enhancing the prevalence of resistant microbes. Rivers act as conduits of these biological and chemical pollutants, and therefore can have far reaching impacts on the environment and public health. Through regular monitoring, a targeted strategy for reducing these pollutants in the environment can be created.

“We welcome the report highlighting the need for government, regulators and the water industry to come together to restore these aquatic environments that have been neglected for far too long.”

Prof Kate Heppell (Chilterns Chalk Streams Project/Queen Mary University of London) & Dr Leon Barron (MRC Centre for Environment and Health at Imperial College London) said:

“’Citizen Science’ can play a critical role in developing our knowledge and response to chemical pollution. For example, as part of Thames Water’s Smarter Water Catchments initiative academics, industry, local government, conservation bodies, like the Chilterns Chalk Streams Project, and residents are combining their skills to develop new approaches to monitor chemicals of emerging concern in the River Chess. If scaled up, such collaborations could contribute to a sustainable UK-wide survey of emerging pollutants recommended by the Environmental Audit Committee report which we consider both timely and necessary.”

Prof Rick Stafford, British Ecological Society Policy Committee Chair and Bournemouth University, said:

“Given the previous major improvement in water quality and ecological health of UK rivers in the 1990s and 2000s, it is sad to see these improvements being undone.  Sewage and agricultural waste not only cause disease, but disrupt the nutrient dynamics of rivers, causing excess algae and harming biodiversity.   Poor water quality can also greatly impact many charismatic river species, including salmon and otters, which have only recently recovered in many UK rivers.”

Prof Iwan Jones, Head of the River Communities Group at Queen Mary University of London, said:

“We welcome the report from the Environmental Audit Committee, and their concerns about the condition of UK rivers. Whilst we strongly support more robust monitoring of the condition of our rivers, the responsibility for addressing the issues raise lies across the whole of society, from individuals to industry and government. We all need to consider the waste we make, how we deal with it, and the impact is it having.”

Prof David Slater, Director of risk management and sustainability consultancy Cambrensis, said:

“A very thorough, helpful, accurate and long overdue report, which needs urgently to be addressed. It is not a surprise, as the issue has been a concern and getting worse for at least 100 years.

“At the turn of the 20th century, waterworks were built and operated privately.  But from the 1970’s onwards, water was formally recognised as a public health necessity and public sector Regional Water Authorities (River basin Management Boards) were established and run by Local Authorities. But underfunded and under invested in by successive governments, there was no improvement, rather a steady decline in water quality.

“When in the 80s the EU introduced stricter legislation for water and prosecuted the UK for noncompliance, the estimated costs of compliance were considered unaffordable, then of the order of £25-30 billion. The quick fix was to privatise the problem and leave the solution to the River Basin Management bodies, which became the 10 largely private equity owned companies we see today.

“All the extra river management duties – pollution regulation, flood defence, drainage, conservation, etc. – were transferred to a new body, the National Rivers Authority.  So, rather than a traditional independent regulator, the water quality enforcement was diluted and left with the people used to marking their own homework.  This “light touch” tentative approach was a source of frustration to the professional regulators that were subsumed into the NRA when the current successor body, the Environment Agency, was formed in the 90’s.  Admittedly there are major challenges and problems with upgrading the infrastructure, such as the combined sewage outfalls (CSO’s), which seem to be regarded as an insoluble problem and are responsible for the bulk of the largely unenforced, illegal discharges into rivers and the sea.

“In contrast Tap water quality was assigned to a traditional small, effective professional inspectorate which has been quietly efficient (in costs and performance).

“So, what we are seeing now is the result of (tolerated) underfunding of the infrastructure by the companies and increasingly underfunded and underpowered (weak by design?) regulation. No surprise then – we have a major problem with our water quality.  What took us so long to recognise it officially?”

Prof Hannah Cloke, Professor of Hydrology at the University of Reading, said:

“I welcome this report which provides a scathing snapshot of the state of the water quality in England’s rivers. I am appalled that we have reached a point where every single river in the country is considered dangerously polluted by chemicals.

“This report highlights the scale of the problem and makes a useful recommendation that the government, water companies and other agencies come together to take every action possible to clean up our dirty rivers.

“Fundamentally this is a question of long-term investment in infrastructure, which means spending cash.  It is understandable that the committee isn’t making this their number one priority, because asking the government for more money tends to lead to a dismissive wave from the Treasury. Collaboration is fine but will mean nothing without investment.

“We need to get real. This problem has arisen because of chronic, long-term under investment in sewers, water quality monitoring, and regulation. It will take billions of pounds over decades to fix, which society has to pay for. This is everyone’s responsibility to solve. 

“We can’t just keep dumping the costs on nature, because it can only take so much punishment before it breaks, with dead rivers and water that kills. I don’t want to live in that country.”

Prof Paul Withers, Professor of Catchment Biogeochemistry at Lancaster University, said:

“It’s very reassuring to see that the report has highlighted and endorsed the need for every catchment to have a nutrient budget to allow targeting of appropriate and effective solutions to tackling nutrient pollution, and for the current outdated, inadequate and under-resourced water quality monitoring programmes to be greatly improved not only to help identify pollution sources better, but also critically to monitor future progress towards healthier rivers and our future water security.”

Prof Nigel Watson, Professor of Geography and Environmental Management, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, said:

“The Environmental Audit Committee inquiry is the most comprehensive and in-depth investigation into river water quality for many years. The final report presents clear and alarming evidence of insufficient investment, ineffective monitoring, inadequate reporting, coupled with weak regulation and enforcement. All of this points to an urgent need for a major shake-up and re-think of the water sector, alongside stronger action to tackle pollution from farming and from highways.

“Early progress in the 1990s following water privatisation has clearly not been maintained. We now have a situation where almost every river in England is degraded by cocktails of untreated or partially treated sewage, agricultural waste, plastics and persistent chemicals.

“The risks to public health and to wildlife from poor water quality are exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. Discharges of untreated sewage have become increasingly commonplace as a result of more frequent intense rainfall and storm events, despite those discharges only being permitted by law in exceptional circumstances. People spending more time outdoors, and the growing popularity of wild swimming, have helped to bring these issues to public and political attention.

“The EAC report sets out some clear and very welcome recommendations, including the enhancement of catchment partnerships, the use of technology to enhance water quality monitoring, better reporting and transparency, and more stringent economic and environmental regulation of water companies, and re-direction of agricultural support towards the environment. All of this is going to cost money, and the critical question now is how much of that should come from water customers, company shareholders, and public taxation.”  

Prof Paul Kay, Professor of Water Science at the University of Leeds, said:

“I think the report represents a fair and robust analysis of the water quality of England’s rivers. I always find that the EAC does a very good job.

“General interest in river quality appears to have increased in the last few years, perhaps as a result of failing to meet Water Framework Directive objectives so spectacularly, but these problems have existed for many years. Water quality has improved a lot since the pollution caused by the industrial revolution but over recent decades we have taken few effective steps to keep on improving water quality. For instance, we have known about combined sewer overflows and diffuse agricultural pollution for a long time but have failed to do anything effective in response. With a growing population and ever increasing consumption of resources and generation of waste the situation is only likely to get worse if left unchecked.  

“Rivers are not in a terrible state but could be improved. Things such as fish kills are not uncommon and I certainly wouldn’t swim in England’s rivers below the very headwaters due to chemical and bacterial pollution. Limiting discharge of raw sewage by sewer overflows is key as is reducing diffuse agricultural pollution. Urban diffuse pollution could also be reduced. We all have a role to play though; so long as we keep consuming as we are (e.g. production of masses of relatively cheap food, lots of meat consumption, using water without thinking, new housing, more and more cars etc etc) it will be difficult to see changes. We also need a government which takes environmental protection seriously and I don’t see that at the moment – see chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and the shambolic creation of the Environmental Land Management Scheme for instance.”

Declared interests

Prof Paul Withers: “was a contributor to the report.”

Prof Nigel Watson: “appeared as an expert witness at the EAC inquiry on March 10, 2021.”

Prof Iwan Jones: “Action on plastics is being informed by research at Queen Mary University of London, helping to determine the risks involved, monitoring methods and appropriate actions to help address this emerging issue.  Iwan Jones submitted evidence for this report.”

Private hospitals could earn up to £90 million a month for being on standby to help the NHS in England as it grapples with Omicron over the next three months.

www.independent.co.uk 

The three-month agreement sees private healthcare staff and facilities put on standby to support the NHS should Covid cause unsustainable levels of hospital admissions or staff absences.

When the deal was announced on Monday, health officials did not disclose the sum to be paid to the independent sector.

But it has since emerged that the private hospitals will earn a minimum of between £75 million and £90 million per month, which they will receive upfront.

This could reach up to £175 million per month, depending on the level of services used.

A letter from NHS England boss Amanda Pritchard to Health Secretary Sajid Javid states that the deal comes with a “minimum income guarantee”.

“We estimate that value based on current information at between £75-90 million a month,” the letter states.

“However, in the event that any system requires surge arrangements to be put in place, the cost recovery arrangements then applicable will be significantly more expensive at around £175 million a month.”

Ms Pritchard points out that this is, on a per bed basis, “significantly more expensive than the equivalent cost of an NHS site with much less certainty on the potential staffed capacity.”

Highlighting the letter at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee MP Meg Hillier said: “(This) is a very expensive proposal.

“It is proposing in order for the independent private sector providers to be ready to stand up at a moment’s notice – seven days – that the cost would be between £75 to £90 million pounds a month based on current information.”

Ms Hillier, chair of the Committee, asked: “Are you content with this very large expense taxpayers being exposed to?”

Sir Chris Wormald, permanent Secretary to the Department of Health and Social Care, said that he was “content the decisions had been made properly”.

Ms Hillier continued: “There is a very big liability there for the taxpayer. Nightingale hospitals were stood down and a not all of the private sector capacity was used last time.”

She added: “The key thing is this is a ministerial direction on an issue we have now been dealing with for two years… it is a minimum income guarantee of between £75 and £90 million a month, which will double if its actually used.

“Why is it such an emergency now? Surely this sort of planning could have happened ahead of time.”

Sir Chris referred to the new Omicron variant but Ms Hillier interrupted him adding: “But we knew from the beginning of the pandemic, variants were talked about right back in March 2020.

“The question is, why wasn’t there a better plan in place that avoids having to pay a minimum income guarantee of that level to the private sector whether or not they deliver?

“Surely by now we’d have got into a better place of negotiation to make sure that we can deliver that extra surge capacity at a lower costs to the tax payer and not do it as an emergency?”

Sir Chris replied: “We have in this case a surge that has the risk of having very severe consequences for the NHS and this is one of the mitigations.”

“They did not care. They have never cared. They only care about themselves, and particularly the prime minister only cares about what he can get away with. Until he is caught out, he won’t admit anything.”

Edward Oldfield www.devonlive.com 

A daughter whose father died in a care home early in the pandemic has refused to accept the Prime Minister’s apology over the Downing Street lockdown party.

Dr Cathy Gardner, from Sidmouth, is challenging the government’s handling of the pandemic, arguing that it failed to protect care home residents.

Dr Gardner’s father Michael Gibson died aged 88 in April 2020. His death certificate says the cause was “probable Covid” as he had not been tested.

At that time, elderly patients were sent into care homes from hospital without being tested, leading to thousands of deaths.

Dr Gardner said she had watched Boris Johnson’s statement in the House of Commons on Wednesday lunchtime.

The East Devon councillor said: “I don’t accept an apology from him. That does not go anywhere near far enough.

“Doing something that he knew was wrong – they all did – at such a point in the pandemic, is indefensible.

“I do not accept an apology, he should be held to account for breaking the law, and whatever rules were in force at the time.

“He would not have said anything about it at all if he had not been caught.

“They did not care. They have never cared. They only care about themselves, and particularly the prime minister only cares about what he can get away with. Until he is caught out, he won’t admit anything.

“It is just another reminder, if another was needed, it is one rule for us, and another for them – or no rules for them.

“How they could actually do that, and not think, ‘Hold on, we have just been telling people not to do this’, beggars belief, it really does.”

Dr Gardner’s challenge in the High Court is listed to be heard over six days in mid-March.

She is bringing the judicial review alongside Fay Harris, whose father also died with Covid-19 in a care home.

They argue certain key government policies and decisions led to a “shocking death toll” of more than 20,000 care home residents from Covid between March and June 2020.

These include a policy of discharging around 25,000 patients from hospital into care homes – including the homes of the claimants’ fathers – without testing and proper isolation.

The prime minister apologised in the House of Commons for attending a “bring your own booze” gathering in the garden of No 10.

He acknowledged the public “rage” over the incident but insisted he believed it was a “work event”.

The push back against Michael Gove’s plan starts! – Owl

Calum Muirhead www.thisismoney.co.uk (Key points)

Britain’s major housebuilders have raked in billions of pounds in profits since the Grenfell Tower fire – and handed vast sums to their bosses.

As debate rages about who should pay to remove unsafe cladding from buildings, analysis by the Mail shows the eight biggest listed housing developers have made £21billion since the deadly inferno in 2017 and can well afford to make restitution.

The profit bonanza has prompted firms to hand their chief executives a total of £202million since 2017. 

The revelations come after Housing Secretary Michael Gove this week said he was prepared to take ‘all steps necessary’ to force the industry to contribute towards a £4billion fund to cover the cost of safety works……

…..Since 2017 the eight FTSE 350 builders have amassed profits of just over £21billion, our analysis shows. Persimmon, the largest London-listed housebuilder by market cap, raked in nearly £4.9billion.

Barratt Developments amassed profits of £3.9billion, and Berkeley Group £3.4billion. All three have developed properties found to have been covered in unsafe cladding, presenting a fire risk.

Bosses have also earned handsome sums, with Persimmon attracting attention for £86million it has doled out. 

A hefty chunk of this was the £82million bonus paid to former boss Jeff Fairburn in 2017 and 2018 – a package that drew outrage from politicians, corporate governance experts and charities, and ultimately led to his ousting from the company.

Berkeley chief executive Rob Perrins was paid nearly £60million.

Barratt and Taylor Wimpey paid out £14.9million and £11.3million to their bosses respectively.

The builders are now being asked to fund cladding removal, having already set aside £1billion to fix existing buildings, while another £2billion is expected to be raised from a cladding tax that comes into force in April.

However, many in the industry have criticised the Government focus on housebuilders, arguing that the makers of the cladding should also pay up.

Others have said their cash will be used to repair properties they were not responsible for building, such as those where the developer has gone bust. 

While the figure demanded by the Government is eye-wateringly high, it pales in comparison to the bumper profits hauled in by major builders, which has left many swimming in cash.

The profit boom has been fuelled by the ever-rising price of houses. The Help to Buy scheme has also been a boon for builders, but has been criticised for funnelling money into the pockets of developers and failing to stop first-time buyers from being priced out of the market.

A House of Lords report on Monday said the scheme, which will have cost £29billion when it ends next year, did not provide ‘good value for money’ for taxpayers, inflating house prices.

It said the money would have been better spent on building more homes. Several firms continued to rake in money despite a series of scandals in addition to the cladding controversy. 

In 2019, a review found some of Persimmon homes had exposed residents to an ‘intolerable’ fire risk due to poor build quality.

And last month, Taylor Wimpey agreed to scrap leasehold contracts that would double homeowner ground rents every ten years.

House price growth accelerated during the pandemic as buyers, encouraged by a stamp duty holiday and low interest rates, stormed into the market, seeking bigger homes.

The frenzy pushed the average cost of a UK home to a record £254,822 in December, according to data from Nationwide.

While the firms have grappled with rising costs of building materials caused by supply chain disruption, this has been more than offset by the escalating cost of British homes.

With an 80 seat majority this government looks to be paralysed and foundering, and that was before the Prime Minister’s “Sorry…not sorry” statement.

Simon Jupp dutifully voted with the whip, yet we still have no plan to relieve the massive increases in household energy bills. – Owl

Anne Marie Morris, the MP for Newton Abbott, supported an opposition day motion tabled by Labour that urged the Government to remove the current tax rate of five per cent on domestic fuel supply.

By Dominic Penna www.telegraph.co.uk

Labour had proposed to fund the measure, which the Resolution Foundation estimated would cost around £2 billion, with a one-off windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas companies.

Ms Morris was previously suspended for five months in 2017 after she was recorded using the ‘N-word’ during a panel event. She repeatedly apologised for this and acknowledged she had used “inappropriate and offensive language”.

On Monday, she said removing VAT was the “right thing to do” in the face of the cost-of-living crisis.

“It is deeply disappointing to have had the whip removed by the Government, especially on a matter of simply standing up for what I believed to be the best interests of my constituents,” she wrote on her website.

“Yesterday’s opposition day debate on removing VAT on household energy bills was an issue that I have voiced my support for a number of times.

“I remain strongly committed to Conservative principles and supporting a Conservative government that acts in the best interests of the country. But I will always vote on the issues of the day, whatever they may be, in the best interests of my constituents in Teignbridge as well as the wider country.”

Ms Morris added that while she understood the Government’s opposition to the procedural nature of the bill, which would have given Labour control of the order paper, she “won’t apologise” for supporting measures she believed would help her constituents.

The issue of rising fuel costs has been thrown into sharp focus ahead of April 1, when the energy price cap is predicted to rise by as much as 51 per cent, adding an estimated £600 a year to average bills.

The Treasury is planning a package of measures to ease the burden on lower-income households. The Telegraph reported on Tuesday that people living in colder parts of the country could receive greater financial support in a bid to protect them from rising costs.

Ms Morris was the only Tory MP who voted against the Government on the motion, which was ultimately defeated by 319 votes to 229. She will continue to sit as an independent, reducing the number of Conservatives in the Commons to 360.

In a winding-up speech, Greg Hands, the energy minister, said Labour “doesn’t have a plan, they have a four-page motion” on the issue of soaring bills.

“This is a student union tactic which they well-rehearsed during the Brexit years,” Mr Hands said. “They have completely lost the plot into their own world of procedural gobbledygook.”

There have been mass resignations before.

In September 2020, Honiton and District Chamber of Commerce and Industry cut all ties with Honiton Town Council.

This latest set of mass resignations includes the Mayor Cllr John Zarczynski.

Is this significant? – Owl

Upheaval at Honiton Town Council as six members walk out of meeting and resign

Philippa Davies www.midweekherald.co.uk

Six Honiton Town councillors including chairman Cllr John Zarczynski have resigned after walking out of the full council meeting on Monday, January 10. 

Vice-chairman Cllr Carol Gilson also resigned, along with Cllrs Jill McNally, Luke Dolby, Phil Carrigan and John Taylor. 

They all left the meeting after a vote was taken to approve the coming financial year’s budget and spending plan. The remaining councillors voted to continue the meeting with Cllr Serena Sexton in the role of chairman. 

The week before, on Monday, January 3, Cllr Vera Howard had resigned from the council. 

Honiton Town Council will meet again on Monday, January 17, when a new chairman will be elected and possibly a new vice-chairman. Councillors will also consider making the former Cllr Vera Howard an honorary citizen of the town. 

East Devon District Council will be notified of the seven vacancies. It will post an advert asking if by-elections are demanded, otherwise the vacancies will be advertised by the Town Council for co-option. 

actions.goodlawproject.org

Over a year of hard work has paid off today. The High Court has ruled that the Government’s operation of a fast-track VIP lane for awarding lucrative PPE contracts to those with political connections was unlawful. 

In a challenge brought by Good Law Project and EveryDoctor to the behind closed door VIP lane worth billions of pounds, the Court found:

“the Claimants have established that operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment… the illegality is marked by this judgment.” (§512)

The Judge agreed the VIP lane conferred preferential treatment on bids: it sped up the process, which meant offers were considered sooner in a process where timing was critical, and VIPs’ hands were held through the process. She said: 

“offers that were introduced through the Senior Referrers received earlier consideration at the outset of the process. The High Priority Lane Team was better resourced and able to respond to such offers on the same day that they arrived”. (§395)

The Court found the Government allocated offers to the VIP lane on a “flawed basis” (§396) and did not properly prioritise bids: 

“there is evidence that opportunities were treated as high priority even where there were no objectively justifiable grounds for expediting the offer.” (§383).

The Court noted that the overwhelming majority by value of the product supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda could not be used in the NHS. 

An independent investigation by the BBC has also revealed issues with the product supplied by Clandeboye which were not disclosed to the High Court. Good Law Project believes that the Government misled the Court and is in correspondence with lawyers for the Secretary of State.

The Judge found that, even though Pestfix and Ayanda received unlawful preferential treatment via the VIP lane, they would likely have been awarded contracts anyway. The Judge also refused to allow publication of how much money was wasted by the Government’s failure to carry out technical assurance on the PPE supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda. Good Law Project is considering the wider implications of these aspects of the ruling and next steps.

We first revealed the red carpet-to-riches VIP lane for those with political connections in October 2020. Since then, we have fought to reveal details of those who benefited, and at whose request – while the Government fought to conceal them.

Never again should any Government treat a public health crisis as an opportunity to enrich its associates and donors at public expense.

Thank you for your trust in us, and your continued support of this case over 18 long months. Without you, this simply wouldn’t have been possible.

We also want to express our deep gratitude to our expert legal team on this case: Rook Irwin Sweeney and Jason Coppel QC, Patrick Halliday and Zac Sammour of 11KBW. They have worked tirelessly on this case and we hugely appreciate their efforts.

---

You can read the full judgment from the High Court here.

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

Convenient coincidence, anyone know where Liz Truss is? – Owl

Rishi Sunak in North Devon today as ‘partygate’ fury continues – live updates

Live updates DevonLive 

Chancellor in Devon as PM faces calls to resign

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak is visiting Devon today as the ‘partygate’ scandal surrounding the Conservative government continues to spark fury.

Mr Sunak tweeted a picture of him with North Devon MP Selaine Saxby during a planned trip to Ilfracombe where he will be visiting Pall Corporation’s base.

During the visit, the Chancellor will welcome the pharmaceutical’s firm – who have helped with the Covid vaccine rollout – announcement that it is investing £60million into creating 200 jobs.

In his tweet, Mr Sunak said he was “excited” to be in Ilfracombe with Ms Saxby.

Shouldn’t take you very long – Owl

Read on to find out, including the latest bizarre explanation from the Met for closing the case.

It’s not just Boris Johnson’s credibility that’s on the line – Owl

Context. Police in England and Wales have processed a total of 117,213 fixed penalty notices for breaches of Coronavirus restrictions up to 20 June 2021. Including:

Large gatherings (£10,000 fine) 

• 366 FPNs have now been processed relating to holding a gathering of more than thirty people in England and three in Wales. 
• These include, but are not limited to, unlicensed music events, protests and private parties. 

Participating in a gathering of more than 15 people (£800 fines) 

• 3,440 FPNs have been processed in England under regulations requiring people not to participate in a gathering of more than 15 people. 501 processed in Wales.

More than 800 people were fined for lockdown breaches in week of the alleged Downing Street party. In May 2020, people could only meet one other person outdoors. And the fine for breaching this rule had risen to £100, with a maximum £3,000 penalty for repeat offences.

Met Police facing legal challenge for not investigating Boris Johnson parties

www.independent.co.uk

The Metropolitan Police is facing a legal challenge over its decision not to launch an investigation into numerous lockdown breaking parties at Downing Street.

The move comes as a former chief constable, Sir Peter Fahy, said the force’s approach was becoming “an issue of competence in the police”.

Lawyers acting for the Good Law Project issued formal legal proceedings against the Met on Tuesday, alleging that the failure to investigate was unlawful. The service’s decision will now be subject to judicial review.

Government officials and the prime minister are alleged to have repeatedly broken Covid restrictions at No.10, hosting parties and cheese and wine evenings throughout lockdown.

The gathering include social events to celebrate Christmas, as well as a “bring your own booze” drinks on 20 May which the prime minister and his wife reportedly attended.

The Met has however resisted opening a formal investigation into the events despite many other people hosting parties around the same dates receiving hefty fines.

Questions have also been raised about why police officers guarding Downing Street did not spot and report an apparent crime in progress at the time.

It was reported overnight that the Met is in contact with the Cabinet Office over the 20 May event.

Sir Peter, who previously headed Greater Manchester Police, told Times Radio on Tuesday that “questions have been asked why the police are not investigating”.

“Normally, if an organisation is thought to have breached the law, you don’t normally leave it for that organisation to go away and investigate it themselves and wait for the result,” he said.

“And I think obviously, some people have said there’s quite a lot of police officers on duty, around Number 10, why did they not realise that there was something going on and report it or at least give advice that this shouldn’t be going on?

“So I think, unfortunately, it’s becoming, you know, as well as an issue of political confidence, one of competence in the police and almost the investigation system.”

Sir Peter said he understood the force’s initial decision not to investigate but that it needed “to give a very full statement about their decision making, probably in consultation with a Crown Prosecution Service, and with the Mayor of London so that “the public do understand the reasoning as to why they’re going to investigate or not investigate”.

Jo Maugham, director of Good Law Project, said: “You can have the rule of law, or you can defer to the powerful. But you can’t have both. Cressida Dick’s cat will know that multiple criminal offences were committed.

“It shames the Met, and ultimately all of us, that she refuses to investigate.”

The Met Police’s response raises more questions than it answers about No 10’s Christmas parties

goodlawproject.org 

Before Christmas, we wrote to the Metropolitan Police asking them to explain or reverse their refusal to investigate the unlawful parties alleged to have taken place at No 10 Downing Street in December 2020. 

We’ve now received the Met’s response, which raises more questions than it answers, and strongly suggests their refusal to investigate the alleged No 10 parties was unlawful. And now the Met’s approach is under the spotlight again following yesterday’s revelations of yet another party, this time organised by a top No 10 aide at Downing Street in May 2020. Each new revelation makes the Met’s policy of not investigating these breaches more damaging. 

In short, the Met says it concluded that further investigatory work would be required before they could decide whether to bring charges, but rather than attempting to do this, they just closed the case. 

Their attempts to justify that decision really don’t make sense. First they say they relied on the Government’s assurances that no rules had been broken. Then they say there would have been no point in interviewing No 10 staff about the parties because they would have refused to answer questions that exposed them to a risk of prosecution. In what other crime would police decline to investigate because the suspected offender assured them no rules had been broken? And those justifications can’t both be true; if no rules were broken, there’s no risk of self-incrimination. We’re intent to get to the bottom of it.

It is not good enough for the Met to delegate their investigative duties to the press. We don’t believe they would make such concessions for anyone else accused of breaking the law.

They seem to be operating a two-tier system, with one rule for those in power and one rule for everyone else. And we think that sets a dangerous precedent with serious implications for public trust. 

We’re issuing formal legal proceedings to force the Met to revisit their decision. Those in power broke the rules – repeatedly. They should face the same consequences as everyone else.

Many of the “Brat Pack” Tory MP’s elected in 2019 are still a little unfamiliar with the layout of the Palace of Westminster. 

Owl believes that the office of the Chair of the 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady MP can be found somewhere on the fourth floor.

In the coming days this might be useful to honourable members, especially those of a rebellious inclination, seeking to deliver a letter on a matter of confidence.

“The many people offended by NHS billions being handed to private hospital groups will balk at what is likely to be a long-term marriage of convenience. But a decade of successive governments’ underfunding, and ignoring or exacerbating its staff shortages, has left the NHS with no choice.”

Denis Campbell www.theguardian.com 

Another day, another initiative to stop hospitals becoming overwhelmed by a combination of the Omicron surge and normal winter pressures. NHS England has struck a deal with private healthcare providers under which their hospitals will be ready to start treating NHS patients who cannot get the Covid or non-Covid care they need because their local NHS hospital is under too much pressure.

This follows the recent news that “mini-Nightingale” field hospitals are being built in the grounds of eight hospitals, that gyms and education centres in hospitals could be turned into overflow wards, and that thousands of Covid patients could be treated at home in “virtual wards”. Any or all of this could happen if the increase in Covid hospitalisations leads to a hospital trust or even entire region of the NHS deciding it needs “surge capacity”.

Announcing the latest tie-up with the private sector on Monday, NHS England’s chief operating officer, Sir David Sloman, who is also the service’s Covid incident director, said: “This deal … means as many people as possible can continue to get the care they need.

“It also places independent health providers on standby to provide further help should hospitals face unsustainable levels of hospitalisations or staff absences. Just like the Nightingale hubs being created across the country, we hope never to need their support. But it will be there if needed.”

Sloman said the the new arrangement was “struck under direction from the secretary of state”. It is easy to see why Sajid Javid would look to private hospitals to ease the NHS’s burden. First, the waiting list for non-urgent hospital care in England is already at a record 5.83m and may break through the 6m barrier when the latest monthly performance figures come out on Thursday. Downing Street is open about the fact that getting that number down is a key priority.

Second, the number of hospitals that have been forced to cancel elective surgery in the face of intense pressure will increase the headline total when the same statistics come out next month.

Third, however one feels about privatisation of NHS care, it is unarguable that people who needed urgent surgery during the pandemic, for a range of serious conditions but especially for cancer, have been able to undergo a procedure in a private hospital that they would otherwise have had to wait an indeterminate length of time to receive on the NHS, because the pandemic disrupted so many non-Covid services, especially in the first wave. The health impact of that is still emerging.

Will any part of the NHS need to in effect commandeer their local private hospital(s)? The deal is “another NHS insurance policy”, one health service boss says. The fact that at least 24 trusts in England have had to declare a major alert since New Year’s Day, because they could not cope with the level of demand they were facing, especially with so many staff off sick because of Omicron, suggests the arrangement may have to be triggered, especially with Covid admissions rising in many regions – up 7% in 24 hours on Monday in both the north-west and south-west, for example.

But David Rowland, director of the Centre for Health and the Public Interest thinktank, cautioned that private hospitals’ reliance on NHS consultants means the plan “really doesn’t stack up as a way of adding capacity to the NHS”.

He also asked whether private hospitals would be paid just the NHS “tariff” rate for any treatment they do provide – the fee they receive when performing a hip or knee replacement on an NHS patient – or whether the health service’s almost desperate need for extra capacity means they will receive a markup as part of the deal. NHS England said only that details about the pricing of the arrangements would follow in the next few days.

The deal confirms that the sheer scale of the healthcare backlog means the NHS will be looking to private hospitals to undertake as many operations as they can for the foreseeable future. NHS England was budgeting to spend £10bn on them for that purpose over the next four years even before Javid ordered this tie-up. A report by the Commons health select committee last week said the private sector would play a key role in the NHS’s efforts to tackle the backlog and that reality was central to NHS England’s finished but still unpublished “elective recovery plan”.

The many people offended by NHS billions being handed to private hospital groups will balk at what is likely to be a long-term marriage of convenience. But a decade of successive governments’ underfunding, and ignoring or exacerbating its staff shortages, has left the NHS with no choice.